Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 601 to 700 of 778

Thread: Omar Khadr judgment/settlement

  1. #601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    And mother and siblings, however, one of his brothers (Abdurahman) has renounced terrorism and is trying to live a normal life.

    Not all the bin Ladens are terrorists either, you can choose to some degree what path you follow.
    But khadr was forced to do everything. Its not his fault.. he didnt have a choice /sarcasm.

  2. #602
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    You're apparently clueless and unable to grasp reason even as an adult. Khadr was 15, back in a country he didn't want to be in, with a father he didn't want to be with, a country with endless calamity, misfortune, and then militarily invaded and essentially at war. With Khadr a minor influenced by all the fighting adults and family around him.

    There probably wasn't much of a realistic choice for him. Not that you have the informed, or mental capacity to even envision that.

    Short question. Do you believe in young offender legislation that differentiates youth from adult sentencing and the rational behind it? Yes or no?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  3. #603

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    But khadr was forced to do everything. Its not his fault.. he didnt have a choice /sarcasm.

    Oh, come on. Omar could have just skipped bomb making school, ran past the Iman, get gas money out of his Mom's purse, steal his Dad's car, blow through half a dozen check points with heavily armed soldiers and drive back to Canada.

    You know, something every 15 year old Canadian teenager does on a Tuesday.

    Can you tell me another way he could have extricated himself from his situation?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 16-07-2017 at 09:24 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  4. #604

    Default

    remember the many posts i mentioned where people are defending khadrs honor and not the charter of rights??? Perfect example right here.

    If khadrs brother was able to escape and denounce terrorism then making better choices was a always an option for khadr.

  5. #605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Too nobody in particular but I'm reminded of a old proverb, like father like son.
    Or the opposing Old Testiment Bible verse.
    Ezekiel 18:20
    The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child.

    The son should not suffer from the sins of the father.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  6. #606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    We are not supporting terrorists.

    Get that through your thick skull
    Actually yes we are, and yes we have. $325,000 of Canadian tax dollars went HCI a "charity" ran by Ahmed Khadr (Omar's dad) and then into Al Qaeda
    http://www.danielpipes.org/1639/the-...y-of-terrorism
    It feels good being vindicated like this

    Per the article above from 2004. Dates: 1988-1997


    "The federal Canadian government, living up to its naïve reputation, contributed $325,000 in Canadian dollars to HCI. From 1988 to 1997 in particular, HCI was simultaneously receiving Canadian taxpayer funding and working with Al Qaeda."

    http://www.danielpipes.org/1639/the-...y-of-terrorism
    Intersting Khadr family info.

    On supporting terrorists via the HCI money I wonder how much other and money gets misdirected. However, it's hard to say if that money went to "terrorists" or "freedom fighters". The Russian invasion of Afgahinstan had created a really messy situation. Moreover, the west didn't really know who Bin Laden was, in terms of being a threat, as late as 1996. Here's an article from 2000 where he was on their radar but note the comments on the west's prior support of Bin Laden.



    "It was the US that helped to train and equip the Mujaheddin back in the 1980s, as they waged their war against the invading Soviet Union.

    One of the fighters who benefited from such US largesse was an obscure volunteer from Saudi Arabia with close links to its royal family - Osama bin Laden.

    In 1986 the CIA even helped him build an underground camp at Khost, where he was to train recruits from across the Islamic world in the business of guerrilla warfare."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ch.lukeharding
    Correct. The CIA and the American government created Bin Laden and many of their military actions and abuses of their occupation precipitated the current situation.

    They brought it upon themselves.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  7. #607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    remember the many posts i mentioned where people are defending khadrs honor and not the charter of rights??? Perfect example right here.

    If khadrs brother was able to escape and denounce terrorism then making better choices was a always an option for khadr.
    Are you that daft? His brother was 5 years older and a full adult, the age of 20 when Omar was captured at the age of 15.

    There is a difference between a 20 year old and a 15 year old.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 16-07-2017 at 10:11 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^^ Thanks for the recap.

    ^ Your last sentence pretty much sums it up. However in Sundance last post/link above vindicates what I was saying previously.

    The recent Omar Khadr settlement really rubs me the wrong way, just as much as doling out $10m to save ten's of millions as JT said yesterday at the Stampede.

    Pardon me if this link has been posted before:

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...e-baf61b4bdb15

    ^ I hope it happens.
    Mrs. Speers and the injured Morris did get deemed an award of $134 million by a Utah Judge. However, many lawyers and legal people in Canada say they doubt very much if a Canadian Court would even recognize their claim. Personally I think the Utah Judge was out of line ordering such a huge amount when there was not even a trial to prove Kadhr killed or maimed those soldiers. By all accounts there were conflicting stories by the U S soldiers there on who pulled the pin on the grenade. Then again it was a civil court that made the ruling on the $134 million and there benchmarks of proof are different from criminal or military proceedings.
    You asked about Kadhr and his religion. Well I did read more than once that he had renounced his religion and apologized for any harm he had caused. He's distanced himself from all that and now goes to a Christian School. Now I'm not saying he's converted and I really hope he has not picked up another religion as one is as bad as the other for screwing with peoples minds.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  9. #609

    Default

    Gemini

    Quit using so many facts. It upsets their strident false narrative.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #610
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^^ Thanks for the recap.

    ^ Your last sentence pretty much sums it up. However in Sundance last post/link above vindicates what I was saying previously.

    The recent Omar Khadr settlement really rubs me the wrong way, just as much as doling out $10m to save ten's of millions as JT said yesterday at the Stampede.

    Pardon me if this link has been posted before:

    http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/...e-baf61b4bdb15

    ^ I hope it happens.
    Mrs. Speers and the injured Morris did get deemed an award of $134 million by a Utah Judge. However, many lawyers and legal people in Canada say they doubt very much if a Canadian Court would even recognize their claim. Personally I think the Utah Judge was out of line ordering such a huge amount when there was not even a trial to prove Kadhr killed or maimed those soldiers. By all accounts there were conflicting stories by the U S soldiers there on who pulled the pin on the grenade. Then again it was a civil court that made the ruling on the $134 million and there benchmarks of proof are different from criminal or military proceedings.
    You asked about Kadhr and his religion. Well I did read more than once that he had renounced his religion and apologized for any harm he had caused. He's distanced himself from all that and now goes to a Christian School. Now I'm not saying he's converted and I really hope he has not picked up another religion as one is as bad as the other for screwing with peoples minds.
    Sorry for the short response its late. I'm well aware of the $134M and I never asked about Omar Khadr's religion. Thanks for the education.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  11. #611
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,874

    Default

    ^^ False narrative because I have an opinion different then yours?

    Yeesh.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  12. #612

    Default

    Well you are the one who sad that we are supporting terrorists. We are not and you know it.

    That is a false narrative.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  13. #613

    Default

    Would it be better to say you and a few others are sympathetic to terrorists/extremists? Your constantly defending khadrs honor.

    I would think differently if you were only defending his charter of rights but you cross that line in every post.

    A few posters get quite defensive when others share an opinion on khadr that they dont agree with.

  14. #614

    Default

    ^You're attempting to frame the debate in your favour every time you call him a terrorist. That's not what he is although you're not even close to alone in misusing the word. Since he's not a terrorist by any honest sense of the word, even among his strongest defenders no one is defending a terrorist.

    He's not a saint either but if I had some preconceived notion that he was, then I could get all indignant about how you're in favour of persecuting a saint, and be just as justified as you are complaining about defending a terrorist.
    There can only be one.

  15. #615

    Default

    i used the word terrorist/extremist in this case just to appease those defending him constantly. Hes one or the other no matter how you want to spin it.

  16. #616
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    744

    Default

    Think of it this way. If a police officer apprehended a suspected bank robber, and then locked him in his basement for a few years trying to learn about his accomplices, the initial crime is no longer relevant. The fact that the rule of law and due process was not followed becomes the major issue.

    At that point the officer is the one who was committed a crime, and would have to pay for his actions through lawsuit, jailtime, whatever. After that has been dealt with, then the initial crime can be dealt with as the courts see fit.

    I'm sure in this case all of you would be horrified if the police officer was simply let off the hook with no accountability, no matter the guilt of the robber.

    Just because the parties in this case are different doesn't mean that the processes that must be followed should be different. The law should not discriminate or show favoritism.

  17. #617
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    744

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    i used the word terrorist/extremist in this case just to appease those defending him constantly. Hes one or the other no matter how you want to spin it.
    Well we don't know that for sure, because it never went to a fair trial. Maybe he is a terrorist. Or maybe he was a scared boy forced to make a bomb on the threat of his life.

  18. #618

    Default

    ^^^It seems you don't know what "extremist" "appease" means either. I'm curious what you think he's being extreme about, or how calling him both a terroris and an extremist is supposed to make peace.
    There can only be one.

  19. #619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Think of it this way. If a police officer apprehended a suspected bank robber, and then locked him in his basement for a few years trying to learn about his accomplices, the initial crime is no longer relevant. The fact that the rule of law and due process was not followed becomes the major issue.

    At that point the officer is the one who was committed a crime, and would have to pay for his actions through lawsuit, jailtime, whatever. After that has been dealt with, then the initial crime can be dealt with as the courts see fit.

    I'm sure in this case all of you would be horrified if the police officer was simply let off the hook with no accountability,
    no matter the guilt of the robber.

    Just because the parties in this case are different doesn't mean that the processes that must be followed should be different. The law should not discriminate or show favoritism.
    Especially if the officer's superiors all were aware for years that he was locked up illegally and actually assisted in doing so.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  20. #620
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well you are the one who sad that we are supporting terrorists. We are not and you know it.

    That is a false narrative.
    We gave Omar Khadr $10M. You don't think his family isn't going to get some of it? That's supporting terrorists.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  21. #621

    Default

    ^ That's you presuming guilt by association. We don't do that here.
    There can only be one.

  22. #622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    i used the word terrorist/extremist in this case just to appease those defending him constantly. Hes one or the other no matter how you want to spin it.
    ter·ror·ist
    noun
    1.
    a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    "four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
    synonyms: extremist, fanatic; More
    adjective
    1.
    unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    "a terrorist organization"

    Does the definition fit. Was his acts against civilians or soldiers? Did he have a political aim or even a religious one? If so, what was it?

    I would not call him an enemy combatant either. That was a term the Bush administration used to get around the Geneva Conventions, allow illegal acts including imprisonment without trial and torture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant


    According to the UN, he would be a Child Soldier

    https://childrenandarmedconflict.un....hild-soldiers/


    Child Recruitment and Use

    The recruitment and use of children during conflict is one of the six grave violations identified and condemned by the UN Security Council. The six grave violations form the basis of the Council’s architecture to monitor, report and respond to abuses suffered by children in times of war. Ending and preventing these violations is also the focus of the Special Representative’s work and advocacy.


    The recruitment and use of children is a trigger to list parties to armed conflict in the annexes of the annual report of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict.


    Tens of thousands of children are recruited and used as soldiers in armed conflicts around the world.


    There are many ways for children to become associated with armed forces and groups. Some children are abducted and beaten into submission, others join military groups to escape poverty, to defend their communities, out of a feeling of revenge or for other reasons.
    Definition of a child soldier

    A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes.


    (Source: Paris Principles on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 2007)

    Now do you understand or do you want to continue your flagrantly false narrative?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  23. #623
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    ^ I've got ten bucks on "continue flagrantly false narrative"...
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  24. #624
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,874

    Default

    ^ We gave him the $10M. If O/K was really sincere lets see if he donates that money to a charity like habitat for humanity, or a Christian charity. He's not obligated to do so, however.


    We need evidence of guilt. I'm presuming he's guilty by association. Its my opinion, which doesn't mean much, I'm just saying. At this point I'm done with Omar Khadr and this thread.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  25. #625
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    744

    Default

    ^What? "In order to be sure you're sincere you must give money you won in a lawsuit to a Christian charity, because if you're not Christian you are definitely a terrorist." Everything you just said is completely insane for quite a lot of reasons.

  26. #626

    Default

    terrorist- killing/harming civilians. Al-qaeda does this constantly.. they rule with fear/death. The bombs khadr made were for who? Al-qaeda. Khadrs family has deep ties with Al-qaeda.

    But your right khadr has nothing to do with his direct associates. It means nothing that his family was directly involved with terrorists. It means nothing that khadr made bombs for al-qaeda to use against our troops.

    Like i said before its interesting how quickly people defend a terrorist. You arent defending his charter of rights by pretending everything khadr and his family are or have done didnt happen.

  27. #627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    i used the word terrorist/extremist in this case just to appease those defending him constantly. Hes one or the other no matter how you want to spin it.
    Well we don't know that for sure, because it never went to a fair trial. Maybe he is a terrorist. Or maybe he was a scared boy forced to make a bomb on the threat of his life.
    This is ridiculous. You can have a murder trial where the guy gets off on a technicality but hes still a murderer. Its not like there arent 10000 serious concerns known to be true on khadr without this trial.

    This notion khadrs a saint and is innocent because there wasnt a trial is ridiculous..

    But i suppose i can watch the video of khadr making bombs that are used for killing CIVILIANS and canadian soldiers and form my own opinion. Whats the trial going to change in this regard?

  28. #628

    Default

    Have you never seen a police procedural or cop show in your life? Are you completely ignorant to the term "circumstantial evidence"?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  29. #629

    Default

    ^such brilliance - so someone is not a terrorist until a court of law has reviewed that person? Next time Canadian soldiers go into battle, instead of pulling the trigger to save their lives, and lives of their comrades, from somebody planting IED's, they should politely walk up, ask how old they are, bring in a lawyer, and start negotiations? You are what you are, somebody who plants IED's and is seen on film doing that, is a terrorist. Canadians of 15, 16 and 17 signed on to fight in WWI and WWII. Khadr signed on to fight Canadians - he is a traitor.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-07-2017 at 02:07 PM.

  30. #630
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    ^What? "In order to be sure you're sincere you must give money you won in a lawsuit to a Christian charity, because if you're not Christian you are definitely a terrorist." Everything you just said is completely insane for quite a lot of reasons.
    He's not obligated to do anything with that money.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  31. #631
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^such brilliance - so someone is not a terrorist until a court of law has reviewed that person? Next time Canadian soldiers go into battle, instead of pulling the trigger to save their lives, and lives of their comrades, from somebody planting IED's, they should politely walk up, ask how old they are, bring in a lawyer, and start negotiations? You are what you are, somebody who plants IED's and is seen on film doing that, is a terrorist. Canadians of 15, 16 and 17 signed on to fight in WWI and WWII. Khadr signed on to fight Canadians - he is a traitor.
    Works for me.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  32. #632

    Default

    ^^ Wait, was he fighting our troops and allies as a soldier, or was he targeting civilians as a terrorist?

    And did he volunteer as some WW1 soldiers did, or was he dragged into the theatre of war years earlier by his family?
    There can only be one.

  33. #633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^such brilliance - so someone is not a terrorist until a court of law has reviewed that person? Next time Canadian soldiers go into battle, instead of pulling the trigger to save their lives, and lives of their comrades, from somebody planting IED's, they should politely walk up, ask how old they are, bring in a lawyer, and start negotiations? You are what you are, somebody who plants IED's and is seen on film doing that, is a terrorist. Canadians of 15, 16 and 17 signed on to fight in WWI and WWII. Khadr signed on to fight Canadians - he is a traitor.
    Have you ever seen a news article that used the term "alleged" criminal? You see, that's because they haven't been convicted. There also is the concept of being innocent until proven guilty and everyone being entitled to a fair trial.

    These are some quite basic legal concepts.

    In your rush to pass judgement you might be willing to forgo a fair trial for some, but a free society can not be so hasty.

  34. #634
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    i used the word terrorist/extremist in this case just to appease those defending him constantly. Hes one or the other no matter how you want to spin it.
    Well we don't know that for sure, because it never went to a fair trial. Maybe he is a terrorist. Or maybe he was a scared boy forced to make a bomb on the threat of his life.
    This is ridiculous. You can have a murder trial where the guy gets off on a technicality but hes still a murderer. Its not like there arent 10000 serious concerns known to be true on khadr without this trial.

    This notion khadrs a saint and is innocent because there wasnt a trial is ridiculous..

    But i suppose i can watch the video of khadr making bombs that are used for killing CIVILIANS and canadian soldiers and form my own opinion. Whats the trial going to change in this regard?
    Lee Harvey Oswald is still considered the murderer of US President Kennedy by many Warren Commission supporters and Oswald never went to trial. Yet 54 years later the American public is almost split for and against.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  35. #635
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,874

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^ Wait, was he fighting our troops and allies as a soldier, or was he targeting civilians as a terrorist?

    And did he volunteer as some WW1 soldiers did, or was he dragged into the theatre of war years earlier by his family?
    There's video evidence on YouTube

    I doubt OK was getting paid to make IED's even though his family dragged him into it. He could have said no.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  36. #636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    There's circumstantial video evidence on YouTube
    FTFY. Forgot a prettttttty important word.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  37. #637

    Default

    U. S. military rarely use the word 'terrorist' they are more prone to use enemy combatant, enemy, insurgent, militant, aggressor even gorillas. Did you every hear in any old war movie of WW1 WW2, Korea, Vietnam etc. any one call the enemy 'terrorists'. Did you every hear the Viet Cong called 'terrorists. One of the reasons they never did this as those wars were mostly fought soldier to soldier. The word terrorist is more likely used when a handful or even one person alone singles out the civilian population to wreak 'terror' upon them. Like the guy running people over in vehicles, the Boston Marathon, or suicide bombers going into crowded markets or events where civilians are gathered and go about causing mayhem and terrorising the population. Those are true 'terrorist' attacks. Attacks in the actual theatre of war were troops are actually fighting the enemy are classed by the military differently. The media have miss applied the word so many times that now the public cant separate a conflict between the army and the civilian population. When it comes to wars (and there have been a lot of them) it's just in the last few years that the enemy has been called 'terrorist' and that's is due to the fact they are acting outside the main war zones and actively terrorising civilians. But the media just sputs 'terrorist' at every opportunity and wrongly have made it interchangeable from civilian to military. It's the media that uses the word more than the military ever did.
    Oxford Dictionary definition:

    noun
    • A person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
      ‘four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists’


      ‘a suspected terrorist’
      https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorist

      Kadhr part in all this was fighting what was his enemy, the U.S.A. and their allies, not civilians. The media (and others) have him as a terrorist. If that is the case every military army, gorilla army or any enemy combatants would all be classed as 'terrorists'.

    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  38. #638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^ Wait, was he fighting our troops and allies as a soldier, or was he targeting civilians as a terrorist?

    And did he volunteer as some WW1 soldiers did, or was he dragged into the theatre of war years earlier by his family?
    There's video evidence on YouTube

    I doubt OK was getting paid to make IED's even though his family dragged him into it. He could have said no.
    Good Lawd, He's in a small village in Afghanistan with his no good father and his no good father's friends. He tells his dad he's not going to do something. Either his dad forces him to do it or he leaves the village and walks into the hands of more of the same. No doubt to be recruited by them to do the exact same thing he said no to his father for. Or he could maybe have just stopped for a burger then caught the next 12.30 pm Greyhound out and just asked the driver for a one way ticket to Canada. Or maybe get on the phone to a social worker and relay that he is being mistreated. Maybe go sleep over at a friends house until things have cooled down.
    After all, even though that small Afghanistan village that was just rubble still had lots of resources for a kid to get away from a wicked father (sarcasm off).
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  39. #639
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    ^ This post is wonderful, haha, well done.

    The sarcasm was good, and apparently required.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  40. #640

    Default

    I think he could have jumped on his skateboard and surfed across the desert back to Canada.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #641

    Default

    I guess that if you watch 'Saving Private Ryan' Tom Hanks would be a terrorist because he made IEDs out of socks, grease and C4. Sticky bomb's IEDs and Molotov cocktails are still in the Army manuals today.

    He threw grenades too.

    Tom Hanks, a terrorist. Who knew?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 17-07-2017 at 04:19 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  42. #642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    i used the word terrorist/extremist in this case just to appease those defending him constantly. Hes one or the other no matter how you want to spin it.
    ter·ror·ist
    noun
    1.
    a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    "four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
    synonyms: extremist, fanatic; More
    adjective
    1.
    unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
    "a terrorist organization"

    Does the definition fit. Was his acts against civilians or soldiers? Did he have a political aim or even a religious one? If so, what was it?

    I would not call him an enemy combatant either. That was a term the Bush administration used to get around the Geneva Conventions, allow illegal acts including imprisonment without trial and torture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant


    According to the UN, he would be a Child Soldier

    https://childrenandarmedconflict.un....hild-soldiers/


    Child Recruitment and Use

    The recruitment and use of children during conflict is one of the six grave violations identified and condemned by the UN Security Council. The six grave violations form the basis of the Council’s architecture to monitor, report and respond to abuses suffered by children in times of war. Ending and preventing these violations is also the focus of the Special Representative’s work and advocacy.


    The recruitment and use of children is a trigger to list parties to armed conflict in the annexes of the annual report of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict.


    Tens of thousands of children are recruited and used as soldiers in armed conflicts around the world.


    There are many ways for children to become associated with armed forces and groups. Some children are abducted and beaten into submission, others join military groups to escape poverty, to defend their communities, out of a feeling of revenge or for other reasons.
    Definition of a child soldier

    A child associated with an armed force or armed group refers to any person below 18 years of age who is, or who has been, recruited or used by an armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls, used as fighters, cooks, porters, spies or for sexual purposes.


    (Source: Paris Principles on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict 2007)

    Now do you understand or do you want to continue your flagrantly false narrative?
    According to international law and the Geneva convention...

    International Criminal Court (ICC)The International Criminal Court (ICC) was created based on a treaty adopted in Rome, Italy, onJuly 17, 1998. The Rome Statute, as it is known, came into force on July 1, 2002. It includes inits list of war crimes the conscription or enlistment of children under the age of 15 years into thenational armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities during an internationalarmed conflict or non-international armed conflict (art. 8(2)(b)(xxvi)) and (art. 8(2)(e)(viii)). Child SoldiersInternational Humanitarian Law January 2013The ICC does not have jurisdiction over any person who was under the age of 18 at the time ofthe alleged commission of a crime (art. 26). The United States is not a State Party to the RomeStatute.On March 14, 2012, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the first person to be convicted by the ICC, wasfound guilty of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 years into the Forcespatriotiques pour la libération du Congo [Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo] (FPLC)and using them to participate actively in hostilities in the context of a non-international armedconflict from early September 2002 to August 13, 2003. On July 10, 2012 Lubanga wassentenced to 14 years in prison for these war crimes.For more information about the ICC, please refer to the American Red Cross fact sheet on theICC, located at www.redcross.org/ihl
    Children Participating in HostilitiesAP I relating to international armed conflicts obliges State Parties to take all feasible measures toprevent children under 15 from taking direct part in hostilities (art. 77). It expressly prohibitstheir recruitment into the armed forces and encourages State Parties to give priority in recruitingto the oldest among those aged from 15 to 18 (art. 77). AP II (relating to non-internationalarmed conflicts) goes further and establish and absolute prohibition against both the recruitmentand the participation – direct or indirect – in hostilities of children under 15 years of age(art. 4(3)(c)). Children who take direct part in hostilities will continue to benefit from specialprotections afforded to them regardless of whether or not they receive prisoner of war statusunder GC III. (AP I, art 77(3) and AP II, art. 4(3)(d)).
    http://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA..._Factsheet.pdf

  43. #643

    Default

    At the time of his capture he couldn't legally buy a beer in an Alberta bar for 3 more years.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    At the time of his capture he couldn't legally buy a beer in an Alberta bar for 3 more years.
    When I joined the Canadian Armed Forces I couldn't buy a beer for 2 more years ... so what's your point?

    And unless things have changed, and I don't think they have, you can still enlist at 16 in Canada with parental consent.

  45. #645

    Default

    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  46. #646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    My point is ... by the legal definitions posted and linked to he was not a "child soldier".

    I also find it tough to find sympathy for his circumstances when I read of this afghan girl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai and what she has accomplished.

    IMO

  47. #647
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way for your home. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-07-2017 at 09:10 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  48. #648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position. It's not like he was raised in Canada where the system could be to blame.

    As to putting ones self in anothers shoes ... haven't heard a lot of people doing that for the Canadian Afghan veterans returning mentally and physically damaged and the price their families pay. Where are the voices for their situation? I see no thread when I search C2E and these are people that served their country and carried out their orders and duties as directed by the Government of Canada.

    IMO
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 17-07-2017 at 09:23 PM. Reason: Additional information/correct spelling

  49. #649

    Default

    ^^^oh man this is comedy..

    As usual gemeni jumps in and defends khadr. Its his daddies fault.. what could khadr do.

    How can someone defend someone who made bombs that killed more civilians then soldiers and not label him a terrorist. Put some thought into this would you?

  50. #650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position.

    As to putting ones self in anothers shoes ... haven't heard a lot of people doing that for the Canadian Afghan veterans returning mentally and physically damaged and the price their families pay. Where are the voices for there situation? I see no thread when I search C2E and these are people that served their country and carried out their orders and duties as directed by the Government of Canada.

    IMO
    Because the posters here defending khadr dont give a damn about our military. They dont remember how many canadians died by ieds. They dont care about how many were seriously injured.

    They say they arent defending terrorism but thats all their doing. They say all they care about are khadrs charter rights but they ignorantly ignore khadrs terrible past. All they care about is khadrs honor..

    They could care less about our soldiers or our military or any of the many families who have lost someone to the very ieds khadr was building.

  51. #651
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position.

    As to putting ones self in anothers shoes ... haven't heard a lot of people doing that for the Canadian Afghan veterans returning mentally and physically damaged and the price their families pay. Where are the voices for there situation? I see no thread when I search C2E and these are people that served their country and carried out their orders and duties as directed by the Government of Canada.

    IMO
    Save me the patriotic bit about veterans fighting for country and for our freedom and that deserve our every thought. Sorry, that sentiment died with WW II. Its really how I feel.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.

    Period.

    The cold war ended. Theres less reason to be in the military now than at ANY point in recorded history. There's less legitimate need for the military than ANY point in recorded history.

    So I'm less than sympathetic about war like missions that have done more harm than anything and that resulted in such things as ISIS, and to who's real benefit?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  52. #652
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position.

    As to putting ones self in anothers shoes ... haven't heard a lot of people doing that for the Canadian Afghan veterans returning mentally and physically damaged and the price their families pay. Where are the voices for there situation? I see no thread when I search C2E and these are people that served their country and carried out their orders and duties as directed by the Government of Canada.

    IMO
    Because the posters here defending khadr dont give a damn about our military. They dont remember how many canadians died by ieds. They dont care about how many were seriously injured.

    They say they arent defending terrorism but thats all their doing. They say all they care about are khadrs charter rights but they ignorantly ignore khadrs terrible past. All they care about is khadrs honor..

    They could care less about our soldiers or our military or any of the many families who have lost someone to the very ieds khadr was building.
    Its the specific military missions nobody gives a damn about. There hasn't been many honorable ones the US or Canada have been involved with since WW II. Theres been a lot of engagements that have been woefully counterproductive.

    To some of us we deduce that the military exists largely for its own purpose and its own perpetuation.

    What nation legitimately poses a risk to Canada. The Duchy of Grand Fenwick? (few will get that remark, alas the satire was lost, military might marches on trying to create enemies)

    We can't have peace on Earth after all. That would be the relative death of militarism.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-07-2017 at 09:35 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  53. #653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    Interesting perspective as i cant fathom how our canadian soldiers and innocent civilians being murdered by al-qaida arent the first thing people think of. How about the canadian soldiers families who have lost loved ones?

    How about the civilians that al-qaida brutally murdered at every turn?? How does one sympathize with terrorists and their families over innocent civilians or our canadian army?

    I think people fail to remember how brutal afghanistan was in the war. We are desensitized to the atrocities that played out with be headings from al-qaida that its become normal now... it wasnt during this war.

    Id love to see some posters tell my wifes brother who lost multiple friends to ied's in afghanistan that they matter less then the terrorists planting ieds...

  54. #654
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    At the time of his capture he couldn't legally buy a beer in an Alberta bar for 3 more years.
    When I joined the Canadian Armed Forces I couldn't buy a beer for 2 more years ... so what's your point?

    And unless things have changed, and I don't think they have, you can still enlist at 16 in Canada with parental consent.
    So were 19 at the time?

  55. #655

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position.

    As to putting ones self in anothers shoes ... haven't heard a lot of people doing that for the Canadian Afghan veterans returning mentally and physically damaged and the price their families pay. Where are the voices for there situation? I see no thread when I search C2E and these are people that served their country and carried out their orders and duties as directed by the Government of Canada.

    IMO
    Save me the patriotic bit about veterans fighting for country and for our freedom and that deserve our every thought. Sorry, that sentiment died with WW II. Its really how I feel.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.

    Period.

    The cold war ended. Theres less reason to be in the military now than at ANY point in recorded history. There's less legitimate need for the military than ANY point in recorded history.

    So I'm less than sympathetic about war like missions that have done more harm than anything and that resulted in such things as ISIS, and to who's real benefit?
    Wow, you really don't get the difference between serving your country and fighting for it? As a member of the military war or peace the government the people elect is your commander, sets the missions, the rules of engagement and the members of the military carry them out.

    The members, the people. You know the ones whose shoes we don't walk in. You have a problem with the mission ... fine, I have a large problem with many of them and the rules they are given to engage under ... but that's not their call, it is the government we as Canadians elect.

    Do you realize how many thousands the mebers of the Canadian Armed Forces have helped around the world? Humanitarian missions from clean water to schools and relief missions. Peace keeping missions from the time Pearson created the term since ... saving thousands more.

    Do you realize how many have been killed ... wounded and how many more will be carrying out the assignments given by the governments we elect.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.
    Wrong ... they were not duped, they were carrying out the orders of YOUR government which they have sworn to and are legally bound to do. Gotta a problem with the mission talk to the government ... not those that serve. You (and other Canadians) elected those that make those decisions.

    So now try walking in their shoes again.

    IMO
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 17-07-2017 at 09:54 PM.

  56. #656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    At the time of his capture he couldn't legally buy a beer in an Alberta bar for 3 more years.
    When I joined the Canadian Armed Forces I couldn't buy a beer for 2 more years ... so what's your point?

    And unless things have changed, and I don't think they have, you can still enlist at 16 in Canada with parental consent.

    So were 19 at the time?
    No in 1976 I was 16.

  57. #657
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position.

    As to putting ones self in anothers shoes ... haven't heard a lot of people doing that for the Canadian Afghan veterans returning mentally and physically damaged and the price their families pay. Where are the voices for there situation? I see no thread when I search C2E and these are people that served their country and carried out their orders and duties as directed by the Government of Canada.

    IMO
    Save me the patriotic bit about veterans fighting for country and for our freedom and that deserve our every thought. Sorry, that sentiment died with WW II. Its really how I feel.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.

    Period.

    The cold war ended. Theres less reason to be in the military now than at ANY point in recorded history. There's less legitimate need for the military than ANY point in recorded history.

    So I'm less than sympathetic about war like missions that have done more harm than anything and that resulted in such things as ISIS, and to who's real benefit?
    Wow, you really don't get the difference between serving your country and fighting for it? As a member of the military war or peace the government the people elect is your commander, sets the missions, the rules of engagement and the members of the military carry them out.

    The members, the people. You know the ones whose shoes we donlt walk in. You have a problem with the mission ... fine, I have a large problem with many of them and the rules they are given to engage under ... but that's not their call, it is the government we as Canadians elect.

    Do you realize how many thousands the mebers of the Canadian Armed Forces have helped around the world? Humanitarian missions from clean water to schools and relief missions. Peace keeping missions from the time Pearson created the term since ... saving thousands more.

    Do you realize how many have been killed ... wounded and how many more will be carrying out the assignments given by the governments we elect.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.
    Wrong ... they were not duped, they were carrying out the orders of YOUR government which they have sworn to and are legally bound to do. Gotta a problem with the mission talk to the government ... not those that serve. You (and other Canadians) elected those that make those decisions.

    So now try walking in their shoes again.

    IMO
    I'm near seniors age. In my whole lifetime there hasn't been a conclusively legitimate war that Canada or the US has been involved in that wasn't first set off by some imperialistic faction that screwed up a nation or region in the first place. Indeed most of the strife found anywhere on Earth is DUE to militaristic action and not in spite of that.

    Its been 1945 since Canada had a clear and legitimate military action that engaged evil that posed a significant risk to the world, or Canada.

    All of the peacekeeping I'm supposed to be saluting is the result of anarchy from imperialistic interference, or world powers getting involved, deposed govts etc, and the chaos that stems from that.

    Next, military is not the answer to everything. People in impoverished nations have water, have arable land, even have food crops IF the world economy didn't rape those countries in the first place.

    Lastly, people with a burning desire to serve in the military today are caught in some valor of the past. Seemingly oblivious that military might doesn't accomplish many if any lasting things. Or that military force is more typically counterproductive. So no, I'm not feeling inured to individuals that have chosen to serve in the military in the most peaceful times in recorded history. I'm of course aware that war is often invoked on an economic basis.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-07-2017 at 10:02 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  58. #658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position.

    As to putting ones self in anothers shoes ... haven't heard a lot of people doing that for the Canadian Afghan veterans returning mentally and physically damaged and the price their families pay. Where are the voices for there situation? I see no thread when I search C2E and these are people that served their country and carried out their orders and duties as directed by the Government of Canada.

    IMO
    Save me the patriotic bit about veterans fighting for country and for our freedom and that deserve our every thought. Sorry, that sentiment died with WW II. Its really how I feel.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.

    Period.

    The cold war ended. Theres less reason to be in the military now than at ANY point in recorded history. There's less legitimate need for the military than ANY point in recorded history.

    So I'm less than sympathetic about war like missions that have done more harm than anything and that resulted in such things as ISIS, and to who's real benefit?
    Wow, you really don't get the difference between serving your country and fighting for it? As a member of the military war or peace the government the people elect is your commander, sets the missions, the rules of engagement and the members of the military carry them out.

    The members, the people. You know the ones whose shoes we donlt walk in. You have a problem with the mission ... fine, I have a large problem with many of them and the rules they are given to engage under ... but that's not their call, it is the government we as Canadians elect.

    Do you realize how many thousands the mebers of the Canadian Armed Forces have helped around the world? Humanitarian missions from clean water to schools and relief missions. Peace keeping missions from the time Pearson created the term since ... saving thousands more.

    Do you realize how many have been killed ... wounded and how many more will be carrying out the assignments given by the governments we elect.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.
    Wrong ... they were not duped, they were carrying out the orders of YOUR government which they have sworn to and are legally bound to do. Gotta a problem with the mission talk to the government ... not those that serve. You (and other Canadians) elected those that make those decisions.

    So now try walking in their shoes again.

    IMO
    I'm near seniors age. In my whole lifetime there hasn't been a conclusively legitimate war that Canada or the US has been involved in that wasn't first set off by some imperialistic faction that screwed up a nation or region in the first place. Indeed most of the strife found anywhere on Earth is DUE to militaristic action and not in spite of that.

    Its been 1945 since Canada had a clear and legitimate military action that engaged evil that posed a significant risk to the world, or Canada.

    All of the peacekeeping I'm supposed to be saluting is the result of anarchy from imperialistic interference, or world powers getting involved, deposed govts etc, and the chaos that stems from that.

    Next, military is not the answer to everything. People in impoverished nations have water, have arable land, even have food crops IF the world economy didn't rape those countries in the first place.

    Lastly, people with a burning desire to serve in the military today are caught in some valor of the past. Seemingly oblivious that military might doesn't accomplish many if any lasting things. Or that military force is more typically counterproductive. So no, I'm not feeling inured to individuals that have chosen to serve in the military in the most peaceful times in recorded history. I'm of course aware that war is often invoked on an economic basis.
    And you're of course aware that everything you have listed are political decisions made by the people that were elected by the people of Canada.

    Of course you are aware that the military has no choice in those decisions made but must carry them out.

    But I am surprised you appear to be completely unaware of all of the humanatarin missions carried out by the military. All the medical aid, water purification systems, schools, aid stations and critical equipment brought in to render aid around the world. (often under fire). As such you also do not recognize those injured and lost in national crisis such as the Quebec ice storms where several members of the Forces were permanently injured rendering aid to Canadian Citizens or the many that have lost their lives or been injured during search and rescue missions here at home. Of course there is much more but as you've already closed your mind it's pointless to go on.

    This disappoints me the most...
    Lastly, people with a burning desire to serve in the military today are caught in some valor of the past.


    See there have been many thousands, like me, that joined because we thought it important to serve our country. Doctors, Medics, Engineers right down to the guys in the dirt have all joined wanting to serve.

    Considering the conversations we have had over the years I thought you were better informed. Sad really, another reason to spend less time on C2E.

    IMO

  59. #659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    ^^^oh man this is comedy..

    As usual gemeni jumps in and defends khadr. Its his daddies fault.. what could khadr do.

    How can someone defend someone who made bombs that killed more civilians then soldiers and not label him a terrorist. Put some thought into this would you?
    RAF bombs in WWII killed more civilians too. Doesn't make their makers terrorists or war criminals though.
    There can only be one.

  60. #660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    Interesting perspective as i cant fathom how our canadian soldiers and innocent civilians being murdered by al-qaida arent the first thing people think of. How about the canadian soldiers families who have lost loved ones?

    How about the civilians that al-qaida brutally murdered at every turn?? How does one sympathize with terrorists and their families over innocent civilians or our canadian army?

    I think people fail to remember how brutal afghanistan was in the war. We are desensitized to the atrocities that played out with be headings from al-qaida that its become normal now... it wasnt during this war.

    Id love to see some posters tell my wifes brother who lost multiple friends to ied's in afghanistan that they matter less then the terrorists planting ieds...
    Good point about our military and soldiers that have been killed or maimed. If all lives are equal I suggest the Canadian Government award each and every one of are military personal a $134 million dollar settlement. War is hell.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  61. #661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    ^^^oh man this is comedy..

    As usual gemeni jumps in and defends khadr. Its his daddies fault.. what could khadr do.

    How can someone defend someone who made bombs that killed more civilians then soldiers and not label him a terrorist. Put some thought into this would you?
    RAF bombs in WWII killed more civilians too. Doesn't make their makers terrorists or war criminals though.
    Yeah, I don't want to remind gwill this as he'll go crackerjack. My Grandma made munitions in the war. We knew she was real feisty but nobody every called her a terrorist. She never actively went out and personally used them on anyone.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  62. #662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position.

    As to putting ones self in anothers shoes ... haven't heard a lot of people doing that for the Canadian Afghan veterans returning mentally and physically damaged and the price their families pay. Where are the voices for there situation? I see no thread when I search C2E and these are people that served their country and carried out their orders and duties as directed by the Government of Canada.

    IMO
    Save me the patriotic bit about veterans fighting for country and for our freedom and that deserve our every thought. Sorry, that sentiment died with WW II. Its really how I feel.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.

    Period.

    The cold war ended. Theres less reason to be in the military now than at ANY point in recorded history. There's less legitimate need for the military than ANY point in recorded history.

    So I'm less than sympathetic about war like missions that have done more harm than anything and that resulted in such things as ISIS, and to who's real benefit?
    Wow, you really don't get the difference between serving your country and fighting for it? As a member of the military war or peace the government the people elect is your commander, sets the missions, the rules of engagement and the members of the military carry them out.

    The members, the people. You know the ones whose shoes we donlt walk in. You have a problem with the mission ... fine, I have a large problem with many of them and the rules they are given to engage under ... but that's not their call, it is the government we as Canadians elect.

    Do you realize how many thousands the mebers of the Canadian Armed Forces have helped around the world? Humanitarian missions from clean water to schools and relief missions. Peace keeping missions from the time Pearson created the term since ... saving thousands more.

    Do you realize how many have been killed ... wounded and how many more will be carrying out the assignments given by the governments we elect.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.
    Wrong ... they were not duped, they were carrying out the orders of YOUR government which they have sworn to and are legally bound to do. Gotta a problem with the mission talk to the government ... not those that serve. You (and other Canadians) elected those that make those decisions.

    So now try walking in their shoes again.

    IMO
    I'm near seniors age. In my whole lifetime there hasn't been a conclusively legitimate war that Canada or the US has been involved in that wasn't first set off by some imperialistic faction that screwed up a nation or region in the first place. Indeed most of the strife found anywhere on Earth is DUE to militaristic action and not in spite of that.

    Its been 1945 since Canada had a clear and legitimate military action that engaged evil that posed a significant risk to the world, or Canada.

    All of the peacekeeping I'm supposed to be saluting is the result of anarchy from imperialistic interference, or world powers getting involved, deposed govts etc, and the chaos that stems from that.

    Next, military is not the answer to everything. People in impoverished nations have water, have arable land, even have food crops IF the world economy didn't rape those countries in the first place.

    Lastly, people with a burning desire to serve in the military today are caught in some valor of the past. Seemingly oblivious that military might doesn't accomplish many if any lasting things. Or that military force is more typically counterproductive. So no, I'm not feeling inured to individuals that have chosen to serve in the military in the most peaceful times in recorded history. I'm of course aware that war is often invoked on an economic basis.
    And you're of course aware that everything you have listed are political decisions made by the people that were elected by the people of Canada.

    Of course you are aware that the military has no choice in those decisions made but must carry them out.

    But I am surprised you appear to be completely unaware of all of the humanatarin missions carried out by the military. All the medical aid, water purification systems, schools, aid stations and critical equipment brought in to render aid around the world. (often under fire). As such you also do not recognize those injured and lost in national crisis such as the Quebec ice storms where several members of the Forces were permanently injured rendering aid to Canadian Citizens or the many that have lost their lives or been injured during search and rescue missions here at home. Of course there is much more but as you've already closed your mind it's pointless to go on.

    This disappoints me the most...
    Lastly, people with a burning desire to serve in the military today are caught in some valor of the past.


    See there have been many thousands, like me, that joined because we thought it important to serve our country. Doctors, Medics, Engineers right down to the guys in the dirt have all joined wanting to serve.

    Considering the conversations we have had over the years I thought you were better informed. Sad really, another reason to spend less time on C2E.

    IMO
    I have no problem whatsoever thanking any person who volunteers to join a fighting force and that fights for their country or fights in line with their allies. Military personal are trained physically and psychologically to follow orders (blindly sometimes) and that takes a great deal of courage. At least we can sleep safe at night knowing that some people are willing to sacrifice their well being to keep our country free. Many of our military personal joined because they had family members that served, grandfathers, uncles etc. Role models who's footsteps they wanted to follow in. In all the b s that has surrounded the Kadhr file the one thing that stands out is that he's not by far the only person who has committed a crime against his enemy. Of the millions of atrocities that have been committed by men/women in all the wars what set Kadhr apart from the rest. After all he was one of many hundreds fighting against U S soldiers and not all of those rounded up ended up in Guantanamo. What made Dubya and Obama and four of our P.M's make such a screw up on this particular kid. I definitely don't blame the military for it. It lays directly in the hands of politicians. As for people joining the military at 16 etc. My grandfather joined the Navy in 1939 at seventeen and a lot of his male cousins joint the military at young ages. That was over three generations ago. The war they fought was different to the ones fought now. More boots on the ground back then, more hand to hand combat. More battleships on the seas looking for subs etc. Plus the attitude of military personal has probably changed. Different fighting methods, different type of enemy. A lot of people join the military these days to learn a trade but in WW1 and WW11 they knew they were joining to fight. Nothing wrong joining the forces to learn a trade because you still know you could be called up to fight. I think you could be wrong about what people think of our military. You just have to look at Rememberance Day where it seems the crowds do not get any less for the services.
    Anyway Tom, thanks for your service and the many others that worked along side of you.
    Last edited by Gemini; 18-07-2017 at 12:11 AM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  63. #663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    My point is ... by the legal definitions posted and linked to he was not a "child soldier".

    I also find it tough to find sympathy for his circumstances when I read of this afghan girl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai and what she has accomplished.

    IMO
    An excellent example of the difference in parenting. Malala's parents were educated, humanitarians, supportive, loving and not extremists. What a difference that parenting makes on the outcome of the children.

    You confirm this point by your example. Thank you.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 18-07-2017 at 05:11 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  64. #664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    My point is ... by the legal definitions posted and linked to he was not a "child soldier".

    I also find it tough to find sympathy for his circumstances when I read of this afghan girl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai and what she has accomplished.

    IMO
    An excellent example of the difference in parenting. Malala's parents were educated, humanitarians, supportive, loving and not extremists. What a difference that parenting makes on the outcome of the children.

    You confirm this point by your example. Thank you.
    Thanks for getting the point of the point I was putting across.

    From an earlier response to Replacement:
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position. It's not like he was raised in Canada where the system could be to blame.
    In short ... the root cause, the source of all of the issue is his parents and their extremist doctrine and by removing him from Canada at 8 to 10 years of age they took him away from any intervention that could have possibly happened through our systems.

    The parents are the cause of all that happened from that point, not the Canadian Government, not the Canadian taxpayer.

    Lets put the blame where it truly belongs

    IMO

  65. #665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    The parents are the cause of all that happened from that point, not the Canadian Government, not the Canadian taxpayer.

    Lets put the blame where it truly belongs
    So because of his terrible parents & unfortunate upbringing a Canadian child should not be afforded the same rights & freedoms that his fellow Canadian children receive? And the government should be free to act with impunity, or at least without lasting consequence, towards him in an attempt to extract vengeance dressed up like justice from him?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  66. #666

    Default

    Gemini:
    what set Kadhr apart from the rest.
    The answers are right in this thread.
    1) He is Canadian
    2) The biggie ... his families connections, fathers command position with Al Queda and loyalty to Osama Bin Laden brought him to the forefront.

    When you put the pieces together it becomes pretty obvious.

    IMO

  67. #667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    The parents are the cause of all that happened from that point, not the Canadian Government, not the Canadian taxpayer.

    Lets put the blame where it truly belongs
    So because of his terrible parents & unfortunate upbringing a Canadian child should not be afforded the same rights & freedoms that his fellow Canadian children receive? And the government should be free to act with impunity, or at least without lasting consequence, towards him in an attempt to extract vengeance dressed up like justice from him?
    As a combatant captured in combat, being held by another sovereign country who by all accounts was interviewed by Canadian personnel that were not active in any form of duress I am having a hard time seeing how we directly blocked his Canadian Charter rights.

    Every year there are Canadians arrested in foreign lands, prosecuted and sentenced to severe sentences with multiple breaches of their Charter rights that get far less intervention from the Canadian Government than was made on behalf of Khadar. Should all of them receive similar awards? Should the government have intervened?

    What about the Charter rights of the Canadians beheaded in I believe the Philippines? No the ransom should not have been paid but ... there was no offer of assistance given to the Philippine government to rescue them, Canada's JTSF-2 where not called in to even consider a rescue attempt and from what I recently read (sorry can't recall source) the family was explicitly told not to speak out as any outcome would then be their fault.

    How about their Charter rights ... seems we are awfully selective on whose rights we defend with the Charter.

    I guess the reason is likely we only step up when there is media attention and good lawyers involved. That seems even less fair to me.

    IMO

  68. #668

    Default

    Missing the point.

    The Canadian government willingly and knowingly denied Omar his rights.

  69. #669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    My point is ... by the legal definitions posted and linked to he was not a "child soldier".

    I also find it tough to find sympathy for his circumstances when I read of this afghan girl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai and what she has accomplished.

    IMO
    An excellent example of the difference in parenting. Malala's parents were educated, humanitarians, supportive, loving and not extremists. What a difference that parenting makes on the outcome of the children.

    You confirm this point by your example. Thank you.
    Thanks for getting the point of the point I was putting across.

    From an earlier response to Replacement:
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position. It's not like he was raised in Canada where the system could be to blame.
    In short ... the root cause, the source of all of the issue is his parents and their extremist doctrine and by removing him from Canada at 8 to 10 years of age they took him away from any intervention that could have possibly happened through our systems.

    The parents are the cause of all that happened from that point, not the Canadian Government, not the Canadian taxpayer.

    Lets put the blame where it truly belongs

    IMO
    I think all would agree to the point where the Canadian Government could intervene and was almost certainly was asked to intervene, but apparently didn't.


    This is highly biased and it's meant to be but it seems that some or much of it was likely valid enough to warrant the settlement:


    30 ways the Canadian government failed Omar Khadr
    Former Guantánamo child detainee celebrates 30th birthday
    Opinion by
    Kathleen Copps
    SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
    https://ricochet.media/en/1405/30-wa...led-omar-Khadr
    Last edited by KC; 18-07-2017 at 10:21 AM.

  70. #670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    As a combatant captured in combat, being held by another sovereign country who by all accounts was interviewed by Canadian personnel that were not active in any form of duress I am having a hard time seeing how we directly blocked his Canadian Charter rights.
    Well, thankfully, the Supreme Court of Canada universally disagrees.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Every year there are Canadians arrested in foreign lands, prosecuted and sentenced to severe sentences with multiple breaches of their Charter rights that get far less intervention from the Canadian Government than was made on behalf of Khadar. Should all of them receive similar awards? Should the government have intervened?
    Given that the Government's intervention in Khadr's case is the source & root cause of his Charter violation, I'm not really understanding your question or framing of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    What about the Charter rights of the Canadians beheaded in I believe the Philippines? No the ransom should not have been paid but ... there was no offer of assistance given to the Philippine government to rescue them, Canada's JTSF-2 where not called in to even consider a rescue attempt and from what I recently read (sorry can't recall source) the family was explicitly told not to speak out as any outcome would then be their fault.

    How about their Charter rights ... seems we are awfully selective on whose rights we defend with the Charter.
    Did the Government of Canada directly & willfully violate the Charter rights of the people in the Philippines? Because that's sorta the lynchpin of the Khadr case. It's not about foreign governments or foreign people in foreign places not following Canada's rules or doing terrible things to Canadians, it's about our own government violating the rights of one of its own citizens, not playing by its own rules, doing terrible things to one of our own & not following the rule of law.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  71. #671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Gemini:
    what set Kadhr apart from the rest.
    The answers are right in this thread.
    1) He is Canadian
    2) The biggie ... his families connections, fathers command position with Al Queda and loyalty to Osama Bin Laden brought him to the forefront.

    When you put the pieces together it becomes pretty obvious.

    IMO
    A lot of us posting on this thread have eluded to his parents and especially his fathers toxic influence on his upbringing. If we get past that time and fast forward to Guantanimo do you think once in U S custody that his rights were violated and if so do you think an apology only should have been given or do you think the settlement of $10.5 was warranted. The reason I'm asking you as I think you will answer these questions and not just answer with more questions like some have been doing on this thread. Your a lot more measured in you reply's and never over re-active, you seem to see the bigger picture.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  72. #672

    Default

    Somewhat interesting:

    Mr. Trudeau: It’s Not Just About Omar Khadr

    https://freeomar.ca/2017/06/21/mr-tr...ut-omar-khadr/

  73. #673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    My point is ... by the legal definitions posted and linked to he was not a "child soldier".

    I also find it tough to find sympathy for his circumstances when I read of this afghan girl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai and what she has accomplished.

    IMO
    An excellent example of the difference in parenting. Malala's parents were educated, humanitarians, supportive, loving and not extremists. What a difference that parenting makes on the outcome of the children.

    You confirm this point by your example. Thank you.
    Thanks for getting the point of the point I was putting across.

    From an earlier response to Replacement:
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position. It's not like he was raised in Canada where the system could be to blame.
    In short ... the root cause, the source of all of the issue is his parents and their extremist doctrine and by removing him from Canada at 8 to 10 years of age they took him away from any intervention that could have possibly happened through our systems.

    The parents are the cause of all that happened from that point, not the Canadian Government, not the Canadian taxpayer.

    Lets put the blame where it truly belongs

    IMO
    I think all would agree to the point where the Canadian Government could intervene and was almost certainly was asked to intervene, but apparently didn't.


    This is highly biased and it's meant to be but it seems that some or much of it was likely valid enough to warrant the settlement:


    30 ways the Canadian government failed Omar Khadr
    Former Guantánamo child detainee celebrates 30th birthday
    Opinion by
    Kathleen Copps
    SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
    https://ricochet.media/en/1405/30-wa...led-omar-Khadr
    Thanks KC, interesting link

    You are also right that, to me, much of it is a stretch.

    That said...
    The Canadian government denied Omar the right to due process, freedom from arbitrary detention, presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, habeas corpus and all other fundamental legal rights.
    And just what could/should the Canadian Government done?
    He was detained by a foreign government under their laws (as many Canadians that have been with no intervention).

    The Canadian government violated Omar’s Charter and international human rights by allowing his torture.
    And what could they have realistically done? Send a terse note? What about Canadians in places like the middle east that have received similar treatment and we have done nothing?

    Many of the other reasons beg the same response.

    If a Canadian, justly or unjustly in our eyes, is arrested in a foreign land under their laws how can the we expect to be able to defend their Charter rights where we have no authority?

    And if we should have acted, but didn't as in many other cases is it truly a breach and do all the others effected deserve settlements?

    Much of the rest is raw politics ... but I think you get my point from above.

    IMO

  74. #674
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    I had no difficulty parsing what was meant. People seem to have difficulty comprehending that there were no available options and quite obviously. You're 15years old tucked in the middle of a vicious fire fight in a hellhole attacked country nobody wants to be, a place where even death sounds like a favor. A place with nowhere to run or hide, with few if any options available. Everything you ever learned in your life is that your a male and its your duty to stand and fight in some way. Its what you know.

    Its incredible people lack even a modicum of understanding of something like that. I think the ability to put ones self in another's shoes must be diminished in present day.
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position.

    As to putting ones self in anothers shoes ... haven't heard a lot of people doing that for the Canadian Afghan veterans returning mentally and physically damaged and the price their families pay. Where are the voices for there situation? I see no thread when I search C2E and these are people that served their country and carried out their orders and duties as directed by the Government of Canada.

    IMO
    Save me the patriotic bit about veterans fighting for country and for our freedom and that deserve our every thought. Sorry, that sentiment died with WW II. Its really how I feel.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.

    Period.

    The cold war ended. Theres less reason to be in the military now than at ANY point in recorded history. There's less legitimate need for the military than ANY point in recorded history.

    So I'm less than sympathetic about war like missions that have done more harm than anything and that resulted in such things as ISIS, and to who's real benefit?
    Wow, you really don't get the difference between serving your country and fighting for it? As a member of the military war or peace the government the people elect is your commander, sets the missions, the rules of engagement and the members of the military carry them out.

    The members, the people. You know the ones whose shoes we donlt walk in. You have a problem with the mission ... fine, I have a large problem with many of them and the rules they are given to engage under ... but that's not their call, it is the government we as Canadians elect.

    Do you realize how many thousands the mebers of the Canadian Armed Forces have helped around the world? Humanitarian missions from clean water to schools and relief missions. Peace keeping missions from the time Pearson created the term since ... saving thousands more.

    Do you realize how many have been killed ... wounded and how many more will be carrying out the assignments given by the governments we elect.

    If you or anybody was fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, you were duped. You were fighting some Bush notion of war in lands that posed zero risk to Canada and with no reason for Canadians to be fighting there.
    Wrong ... they were not duped, they were carrying out the orders of YOUR government which they have sworn to and are legally bound to do. Gotta a problem with the mission talk to the government ... not those that serve. You (and other Canadians) elected those that make those decisions.

    So now try walking in their shoes again.

    IMO
    I'm near seniors age. In my whole lifetime there hasn't been a conclusively legitimate war that Canada or the US has been involved in that wasn't first set off by some imperialistic faction that screwed up a nation or region in the first place. Indeed most of the strife found anywhere on Earth is DUE to militaristic action and not in spite of that.

    Its been 1945 since Canada had a clear and legitimate military action that engaged evil that posed a significant risk to the world, or Canada.

    All of the peacekeeping I'm supposed to be saluting is the result of anarchy from imperialistic interference, or world powers getting involved, deposed govts etc, and the chaos that stems from that.

    Next, military is not the answer to everything. People in impoverished nations have water, have arable land, even have food crops IF the world economy didn't rape those countries in the first place.

    Lastly, people with a burning desire to serve in the military today are caught in some valor of the past. Seemingly oblivious that military might doesn't accomplish many if any lasting things. Or that military force is more typically counterproductive. So no, I'm not feeling inured to individuals that have chosen to serve in the military in the most peaceful times in recorded history. I'm of course aware that war is often invoked on an economic basis.
    And you're of course aware that everything you have listed are political decisions made by the people that were elected by the people of Canada.

    Of course you are aware that the military has no choice in those decisions made but must carry them out.

    But I am surprised you appear to be completely unaware of all of the humanatarin missions carried out by the military. All the medical aid, water purification systems, schools, aid stations and critical equipment brought in to render aid around the world. (often under fire). As such you also do not recognize those injured and lost in national crisis such as the Quebec ice storms where several members of the Forces were permanently injured rendering aid to Canadian Citizens or the many that have lost their lives or been injured during search and rescue missions here at home. Of course there is much more but as you've already closed your mind it's pointless to go on.

    This disappoints me the most...
    Lastly, people with a burning desire to serve in the military today are caught in some valor of the past.


    See there have been many thousands, like me, that joined because we thought it important to serve our country. Doctors, Medics, Engineers right down to the guys in the dirt have all joined wanting to serve.

    Considering the conversations we have had over the years I thought you were better informed. Sad really, another reason to spend less time on C2E.

    IMO
    Having a different opinion on the military in present day is not better or worse informed. Of course I am aware of humanitarian efforts and military exercises to stabilize regions. You missed my point that such instability is often caused by foreign policy, imperialist influence, super powers, or economic sanctions in the first place. With military also involved in those interventions.

    As per the military just doing what the elected want I hardly see that to be the case historically. Indeed its the opinion of most that study war that it is the invocation of leaders that results in war more than the populace wanting them.

    Anyway, I will say that Canadian peacekeeping efforts used to be a more noble effort, and Canada's reputation was helped by this and that people were served through that. I would say that was working better in the 70's, 80's. In the 90's a much more pronounced US pull started to occur politically and hasn't changed since where Canada is more and more expected to conform to the US or NATO bidding. So that by now Canada's Military efforts and engagements can no longer be seen as primarily peace keeping.

    As far as things like the Quebec Ice Storm it is not essential to have a strong military to be involved in such efforts. Indeed a strong military is the least financially effective allocation in which to deal with localized emergencies. Without such extensive military funding more could go to funding proper underground electrical service, more hospitals, more emergency responders, fire stations, and so on. That you cite specifically the Military use during such things as a Quebec ice storm does more for my point that a large military force in present day is essentially not needed. Those monies could be reallocated and with better result.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  75. #675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well some posters think he could just walk away and hitchhike back to Canada, half a world away.
    My point is ... by the legal definitions posted and linked to he was not a "child soldier".

    I also find it tough to find sympathy for his circumstances when I read of this afghan girl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai and what she has accomplished.

    IMO
    An excellent example of the difference in parenting. Malala's parents were educated, humanitarians, supportive, loving and not extremists. What a difference that parenting makes on the outcome of the children.

    You confirm this point by your example. Thank you.
    Thanks for getting the point of the point I was putting across.

    From an earlier response to Replacement:
    I have a clear understanding Replacement, I also have a clear understanding of who is to blame and it is not the Canadian Tax Payer.

    His position was the sole creation of his parents who created the monster once he was out of the country. The parents created the situation, indoctronation and education that put him in that position. It's not like he was raised in Canada where the system could be to blame.
    In short ... the root cause, the source of all of the issue is his parents and their extremist doctrine and by removing him from Canada at 8 to 10 years of age they took him away from any intervention that could have possibly happened through our systems.

    The parents are the cause of all that happened from that point, not the Canadian Government, not the Canadian taxpayer.

    Lets put the blame where it truly belongs

    IMO
    I think all would agree to the point where the Canadian Government could intervene and was almost certainly was asked to intervene, but apparently didn't.


    This is highly biased and it's meant to be but it seems that some or much of it was likely valid enough to warrant the settlement:


    30 ways the Canadian government failed Omar Khadr
    Former Guantánamo child detainee celebrates 30th birthday
    Opinion by
    Kathleen Copps
    SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
    https://ricochet.media/en/1405/30-wa...led-omar-Khadr
    Thanks KC, interesting link

    You are also right that, to me, much of it is a stretch.

    That said...
    The Canadian government denied Omar the right to due process, freedom from arbitrary detention, presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, habeas corpus and all other fundamental legal rights.
    And just what could/should the Canadian Government done?
    He was detained by a foreign government under their laws (as many Canadians that have been with no intervention).

    The Canadian government violated Omar’s Charter and international human rights by allowing his torture.
    And what could they have realistically done? Send a terse note? What about Canadians in places like the middle east that have received similar treatment and we have done nothing?

    Many of the other reasons beg the same response.

    If a Canadian, justly or unjustly in our eyes, is arrested in a foreign land under their laws how can the we expect to be able to defend their Charter rights where we have no authority?

    And if we should have acted, but didn't as in many other cases is it truly a breach and do all the others effected deserve settlements?

    Much of the rest is raw politics ... but I think you get my point from above.

    IMO
    It's a huge can of worms.

    Like I was saying many posts back, dual citizenship, people going off to fight battles (with allies or against allies) are not good Canadians and we need redress to protect taxpayers from assuming risks created by these narcissistic Canadians.

    Maybe even the same with those that fail to obey travel bans, domestic evacuation orders, etc.

    An "author of one's own misfortune" shouldn't be able to throw risks and potentially huge costs onto other Canadians just because they felt like it or had some belief (religion, loyalty to a past motherland, etc).

    Commonwealth nations excepted in some cases of course.

  76. #676

    Default

    noodle
    Well, thankfully, the Supreme Court of Canada universally disagrees.
    They have made a legal interpretation/opinion, my opinion is obviously different based on all I have read in this thread and in the reading and research I've done while you folks have been arguing. Through reading from multiple points of view I have seen no direct action by Canadians representing the government that counter his Charter rights while in the hands of a foreign power.

    The actions of the United States government is a different matter.

    Given that the Government's intervention in Khadr's case is the source & root cause of his Charter violation, I'm not really understanding your question or framing of it.
    Much of the case and the Supreme Courts ruling is based on a lack of action by the Canadian government rather than active participation in breaches of his Charter rights. As such and considering the number of Canadians that have been arrested in foreign lands that suffered similar inaction to defend their Charter rights should they not also be compensated?

    Did the Government of Canada directly & willfully violate the Charter rights of the people in the Philippines? Because that's sorta the lynchpin of the Khadr case. It's not about foreign governments or foreign people in foreign places not following Canada's rules or doing terrible things to Canadians, it's about our own government violating the rights of one of its own citizens, not playing by its own rules, doing terrible things to one of our own & not following the rule of law.
    Again in the Khadar case much is based on "what they should have done" as opposed to "what they actually did" so the cases are similar.

    In addition telling the victims families to stay quite or accept responsibility seems to meet the criteria IMO.

  77. #677
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    The parents are the cause of all that happened from that point, not the Canadian Government, not the Canadian taxpayer.

    Lets put the blame where it truly belongs
    So because of his terrible parents & unfortunate upbringing a Canadian child should not be afforded the same rights & freedoms that his fellow Canadian children receive? And the government should be free to act with impunity, or at least without lasting consequence, towards him in an attempt to extract vengeance dressed up like justice from him?
    Thanks. Since when are young offenders held accountable, and responsible, for the heinous actions of their parents. I'm quite confused, legitimately, with that invoked train of thought. Really I don't know why Thomas cited it specifically. For sure its a point not well made.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  78. #678

    Default

    The remedy of disclosure being granted to Mr. Khadr is for breach of a constitutional duty that arose when Canadian agents became participants in a process that violates Canada’s international obligations. Whether or not he is given similar disclosure by U.S. officials, he is entitled to a remedy for the Canadian government’s failure to provide disclosure to him after having given U.S. authorities access to the product of the interviews, in circumstances that engaged s. 7 of the Charter .
    https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../4638/index.do

    We interrogated a minor without legal representation or informing him of his rights & then handed the illegally-obtained results of this Charter violation over to the Americans to be used as fuel for his further investigation, interrogation & torture at an illegal detention centre.

    Is that a direct enough action for you?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  79. #679

    Default

    It must be pointed out that Khadr was either 9 or 11 years old when he was taken out of Canada by his terrorist father.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    noodle
    Well, thankfully, the Supreme Court of Canada universally disagrees.
    They have made a legal interpretation/opinion, my opinion is obviously different based on all I have read in this thread and in the reading and research I've done while you folks have been arguing. Through reading from multiple points of view I have seen no direct action by Canadians representing the government that counter his Charter rights while in the hands of a foreign power.

    The actions of the United States government is a different matter.

    Given that the Government's intervention in Khadr's case is the source & root cause of his Charter violation, I'm not really understanding your question or framing of it.
    Much of the case and the Supreme Courts ruling is based on a lack of action by the Canadian government rather than active participation in breaches of his Charter rights. As such and considering the number of Canadians that have been arrested in foreign lands that suffered similar inaction to defend their Charter rights should they not also be compensated?

    Did the Government of Canada directly & willfully violate the Charter rights of the people in the Philippines? Because that's sorta the lynchpin of the Khadr case. It's not about foreign governments or foreign people in foreign places not following Canada's rules or doing terrible things to Canadians, it's about our own government violating the rights of one of its own citizens, not playing by its own rules, doing terrible things to one of our own & not following the rule of law.
    Again in the Khadar case much is based on "what they should have done" as opposed to "what they actually did" so the cases are similar.

    In addition telling the victims families to stay quite or accept responsibility seems to meet the criteria IMO.
    Repeatedly under Harper it seemed that there were claims that there was a complete a lack of action by the government to help citizens abroad. That was my perception anyway - as in: Hey, again someone says they got zero help? Is this deliberate?

    If so I'm not sure what the right answer is. You leave Canada and you take your chances. However, would the government do the same if an official was held abroad? Mark them "on extended leave" and hire a replacement?
    Last edited by KC; 18-07-2017 at 10:54 AM.

  81. #681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Again in the Khadar case much is based on "what they should have done" as opposed to "what they actually did" so the cases are similar.

    In addition telling the victims families to stay quite or accept responsibility seems to meet the criteria IMO.
    I think its that some people today are born with this massive sense of entitlement and righteousness that the Canadian government owes them protection anywhere in the world. I gave the example earlier of someone who goes to Saudi Arabia and kisses someone of the same sex, and ends up in jail. Yeah, by Canadian standards that's horrendous, and a breach of their "charter rights". But its also incredibly stupid - the idea that Noodle has, that the Canadian government is obligated to throw millions of dollars after every Canadian who does something within their charter rights in Canada, but illegal, in a foreign country, is nuts. Yes, help someone if its practical (it can backfire badly, like it did with Khadrs dad and his expensive release from Pakistan on Canadian dime, which IMO is why the Liberal government of the day didn't want to get burned twice by this family), but there is no "obligation" to do it, there are enough people struggling in Canada, focus on them. The Supreme Court, IMO, got it wrong, its a totally impractical judgment / precedent - I fear they don't care because its a judgment that benefits the legal profession to which they are a part.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-07-2017 at 10:58 AM.

  82. #682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Gemini:
    what set Kadhr apart from the rest.
    The answers are right in this thread.
    1) He is Canadian
    2) The biggie ... his families connections, fathers command position with Al Queda and loyalty to Osama Bin Laden brought him to the forefront.

    When you put the pieces together it becomes pretty obvious.

    IMO
    A lot of us posting on this thread have eluded to his parents and especially his fathers toxic influence on his upbringing. If we get past that time and fast forward to Guantanimo do you think once in U S custody that his rights were violated and if so do you think an apology only should have been given or do you think the settlement of $10.5 was warranted. The reason I'm asking you as I think you will answer these questions and not just answer with more questions like some have been doing on this thread. Your a lot more measured in you reply's and never over re-active, you seem to see the bigger picture.
    Ok

    Do I think his Canadian Charter rights were breached while in custody of a Forgiven Power ... Short answer yes, but he was under their laws and jurisdiction not Canada's.

    If his time in Gitmo and the circumstances of his time their had happened in Edmonton then yes I would agree it would have been a breach of his Canadian Charter rights ... but it didn't and he was not under our jurisdiction or laws. Similar to what has happened to other Canadians arrested in other lands.

    I do not agree with the apology or settlement for the same reasons.

    When you choose to take the risk of traveling to other lands and high risk activities you fall under their laws and jurisdiction ... laws that none of us may agree with, but they are the laws of the land. You (or your family on your behalf if under 1 have accepted these risks and are bound to act by those laws or if you breach them you are subject to them.

    Is it necessarily fair .... maybe not by Canadian standards and law, but it is not Canada.

    And if, as the Supreme court rules and how the government of the day has settled, the country should intervene then is has to in ALL cases, not just polictally convenient ones or in an effort to save a buck.

    It really is an all or nothing deal and do we wish to accept that cost as a society and do we have the right to project our values on laws of other nations?

    IMO

  83. #683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Again in the Khadar case much is based on "what they should have done" as opposed to "what they actually did" so the cases are similar.

    In addition telling the victims families to stay quite or accept responsibility seems to meet the criteria IMO.
    I think its that some people today are born with this massive sense of entitlement and righteousness that the Canadian government owes them protection anywhere in the world. I gave the example earlier of someone who goes to Saudi Arabia and kisses someone of the same sex, and ends up in jail. Yeah, by Canadian standards that's horrendous, and a breach of their "charter rights". But its also incredibly stupid - the idea that Noodle has, that the Canadian government is obligated to throw millions of dollars after every Canadian who does something within their charter rights in Canada, but illegal, in a foreign country, is nuts. Yes, help someone if its practical, but there is no "obligation" to do it, there are enough people struggling in Canada, focus on them. The Supreme Court, IMO, got it wrong, its a totally impractical judgment / precedent - I fear they don't care because its a judgment that benefits the legal profession to which they are a part.
    Entrenching rights created in the context of the times without a clause to revisit and modernize or as you desire, to pragmatism them was foreseen but not done.

    Some outs were built in but clearly times and conditions change and it would be interesting to be able to see where the trends go to extremes.

    Were just lucky that we now have the precedent of the "living tree doctrine".
    Last edited by KC; 18-07-2017 at 11:01 AM.

  84. #684

    Default

    To the extent that Canadian officials operating abroad are bound by s. 7 of the Charter , as we have earlier concluded was the case in this appeal, they are bound by the principles of fundamental justice in an analogous way. Where, as in this case, an individual’s s. 7 right to liberty is engaged by Canada’s participation in a foreign process that is contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations, s. 7 of the Charter imposes a duty on Canada to provide disclosure to the individual. Thus, s. 7 imposes a duty on Canada to provide disclosure of materials in its possession arising from its participation in the foreign process that is contrary to international law and jeopardizes the liberty of a Canadian citizen.
    We had a duty, we failed that duty.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  85. #685

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Do I think his Canadian Charter rights were breached while in custody of a Forgiven Power ... Short answer yes, but he was under their laws and jurisdiction not Canada's.

    If his time in Gitmo and the circumstances of his time their had happened in Edmonton then yes I would agree it would have been a breach of his Canadian Charter rights ... but it didn't and he was not under our jurisdiction or laws. Similar to what has happened to other Canadians arrested in other lands.

    IMO
    The breach of his rights was not the US putting him in Gitmo but rather the Canadian gov't being COMPLICIT in keeping him there as opposed to providing him consular support to bring him back to Canada (to either try him in a PROPER court or set him free).

    The Canadian gov't was even neutral, it was supporting the US in keeping him there.

  86. #686

    Default

    ^if there is an obligation for the Canadian government to take action to free Canadians from foreign jails, then we are going to be spending billions of taxpayer dollars in the coming decades on foreign lawyers.

  87. #687

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Do I think his Canadian Charter rights were breached while in custody of a Forgiven Power ... Short answer yes, but he was under their laws and jurisdiction not Canada's.

    If his time in Gitmo and the circumstances of his time their had happened in Edmonton then yes I would agree it would have been a breach of his Canadian Charter rights ... but it didn't and he was not under our jurisdiction or laws. Similar to what has happened to other Canadians arrested in other lands.

    IMO
    The breach of his rights was not the US putting him in Gitmo but rather the Canadian gov't being COMPLICIT in keeping him there as opposed to providing him consular support to bring him back to Canada (to either try him in a PROPER court or set him free).

    The Canadian gov't was even neutral, it was supporting the US in keeping him there.
    You can say this about every canadian arrested abroad. Will your outrage also be directed at the 1000+ canadians left abroad?

  88. #688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    The Canadian gov't was even neutral, it was supporting the US in keeping him there.
    Heck, we actively tried to keep him there when the Obama Administration wanted to repatriate him. Reeeeevolting.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  89. #689
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    Thomas, I'm going to call you out on arrogant assumptions in this conversation. Which is sad to see as well;

    "Considering the conversations we have had over the years I thought you were better informed. Sad really, another reason to spend less time on C2E"

    "They have made a legal interpretation/opinion, my opinion is obviously different based on all I have read in this thread and in the reading and research I've done while you folks have been arguing"

    "But I am surprised you appear to be completely unaware of all of the humanitarian missions carried out by the military"

    Theres been several more in this thread where you are talking down to others positions on the matter. Seemingly because you served in the military, and you feel this gives you different information, fine. But to say that you've researched this more, or that you are better informed, or the supposition that others are not informed veers in another area and suggests that you arguing from an obvious position of bias, defending the military, which is odd you don't recognize.

    While I enjoy discussing matters with you I don't particularly enjoy discussing this matter with you but I won't hold back either from stating my position even though it would differ from yours. Obviously I knew that it would. Perhaps lost to you is you don't reconsider on this topic either, and you won't. Even though you oddly enough stated this to me;

    "Of course there is much more but as you've already closed your mind it's pointless to go on."

    But on this topic of the military, really Thomas, who is more likely ingrained?
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  90. #690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    You can say this about every canadian arrested abroad. Will your outrage also be directed at the 1000+ canadians left abroad?
    How many of those are illegally held, then interviewed by Canadian officials in circumstances contrary to Canadian concepts of fundamental justice & have those interviews turned over without their knowledge to their illegal captors to be used as fodder for further interrogation & torture?

    Because you're stripping out some rather salient & important points in your vast oversimplification.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  91. #691

    Default

    scape·goat
    ˈskāpˌɡōt/
    noun


    • 1.
      a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings, mistakes, or faults of others, especially for reasons of expediency.
      synonyms: Fall Guy, patsy, whipping boy; More


    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  92. #692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^if there is an obligation for the Canadian government to take action to free Canadians from foreign jails, then we are going to be spending billions of taxpayer dollars in the coming decades on foreign lawyers.
    If the Canadian gov't is actively helping foreign countries keep Canadian citizens in torture places like Gitmo, then the Canadian gov't is responsible just like it was with Khadr.

  93. #693

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by faraz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    Do I think his Canadian Charter rights were breached while in custody of a Forgiven Power ... Short answer yes, but he was under their laws and jurisdiction not Canada's.

    If his time in Gitmo and the circumstances of his time their had happened in Edmonton then yes I would agree it would have been a breach of his Canadian Charter rights ... but it didn't and he was not under our jurisdiction or laws. Similar to what has happened to other Canadians arrested in other lands.

    IMO
    The breach of his rights was not the US putting him in Gitmo but rather the Canadian gov't being COMPLICIT in keeping him there as opposed to providing him consular support to bring him back to Canada (to either try him in a PROPER court or set him free).

    The Canadian gov't was even neutral, it was supporting the US in keeping him there.
    You can say this about every canadian arrested abroad. Will your outrage also be directed at the 1000+ canadians left abroad?
    So every Canadian arrested abroad is being kept there with the help of Canadian gov't?

  94. #694

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    You can say this about every canadian arrested abroad. Will your outrage also be directed at the 1000+ canadians left abroad?
    How many of those are illegally held, then interviewed by Canadian officials in circumstances contrary to Canadian concepts of fundamental justice & have those interviews turned over without their knowledge to their illegal captors to be used as fodder for further interrogation & torture?

    Because you're stripping out some rather salient & important points in your vast oversimplification.
    Many from what I have read have not been even able to get help from the Canadian Embassies.

    Because you're stripping out some rather salient & important points in your vast oversimplification.
    I most certainly am for brevity, this morning I have popped on and off while taking care of work tasks, during business hours this is not my priority while at the same time I try not to keep others hanging.

    In a face to face free time environment I would enjoy debating finer details, but not here.

    IMO

  95. #695

    Default

    ^........but because he was under U. S. A laws do you think that is a good enough reason for our government to turn their back on his abuse. To let him be held for 10 years knowing what was happening to him but dragging their heals about it. Knowing he was being held on a charge the U S had created to retro-actively charge him with.
    I'm sure at one point the U S even realized there was nothing more Kadhr had to offer them in the way of telling them what his cohorts were up to.
    About others being held in foreign jails. Most of these cases are not as politically charged as the Kadhr case therefore get no publicity. A lot of times the government works behind the scenes to get these people released but a lot of these cases are not political but criminal in nature. An example would be a drug smuggler. If the smuggler was found guilty then given a jail term for his crime he should be expected to do the time in that country. The only time the government should intervene is if his rights are being violated (which in most civilized countries they are not).
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  96. #696
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    9,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    You can say this about every canadian arrested abroad. Will your outrage also be directed at the 1000+ canadians left abroad?
    How many of those are illegally held, then interviewed by Canadian officials in circumstances contrary to Canadian concepts of fundamental justice & have those interviews turned over without their knowledge to their illegal captors to be used as fodder for further interrogation & torture?

    Because you're stripping out some rather salient & important points in your vast oversimplification.
    For these reasons I don't follow how Thomas was equating the two either. The Canadians held in the Philippines were not interrogated or accessed by Canadian officials. The Canadian govt wasn't complicit with their detaining, with their abusive treatment, and was of course not withholding Canadian due legal process from them.

    How are people equating individuals held hostage by foreign opportunist rebels in the Philippines with what happened to Khadr that involved direct, and in person, Canadian complicity?

    If anybody could legitimately explain how they are making that comparison..
    Last edited by Replacement; 18-07-2017 at 11:44 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  97. #697

    Default

    He said he's too busy to deal with the facts or crucial points of the case so he's just operating on his pro-military bias & jingoistic gut feelings between his more important obligations, so maybe that's it?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  98. #698

    Default

    Replacement

    Seemingly because you served in the military,
    Actually not because I served, that was 40 years ago and the world has changed as has the military and I don't agree with all that has changed in the military.

    But because I follow a wide range of events and doctrines, not just one view and I find views opposing mine often very valid and enlightening. The broader the viewpoints taken the better the information IMO.

    But to say that you've researched this more, or that you are better informed, or the supposition that others are not informed veers in another area and suggests that you arguing from an obvious position of bias, defending the military, which is odd you don't recognize.
    Never said I research it more or that I am better informed overall. Defending the military, often. On this forum and in our recent conversations the view is always centered on fighting and how it's the fault of the military, both false and I get sick of it. You recent comments have also centered that way.

    Politicians, the representatives Canadians elect in our representative democracy ( so your voice) choose the operations, missions and direction of the military not the members serving. Something very rarely acknowledged on this forum. They also have both sworn an oath and are legally bound by Canadian law to execute on the orders passed down by the politicians ... particularly in todays world.

    So to blame the members for political decisions is flat wrong.

    The concentration, even yours most recent, seems to only recognize combat and conflict never ALL the other missions and duties that are carried out, often at great personal cost of the members.

    So while you may have an argument their are more economic ways to carry out non combat roles (not for this thread) you again do not seem to recognize that is a political not a military decision.

    But on this topic of the military, really Thomas, who is more likely ingrained?
    I am going to point that back at you Replacement, I've read of where your bias comes from in a post on this forum and appreciate the point of view.

    But continuing to place responsibility (as I read your posts) for political decisions on the military is wrong. No member of the military command structure can send Canadian Military can send troops to Sudan as is being considered .... only politicians can make that choice and then it must be carried out by the military.

    H3LL they can't even pick their equipment ... that's political as well.

    IMO

  99. #699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    You can say this about every canadian arrested abroad. Will your outrage also be directed at the 1000+ canadians left abroad?
    How many of those are illegally held, then interviewed by Canadian officials in circumstances contrary to Canadian concepts of fundamental justice & have those interviews turned over without their knowledge to their illegal captors to be used as fodder for further interrogation & torture?

    Because you're stripping out some rather salient & important points in your vast oversimplification.
    For these reasons I don't follow how Thomas was equating the two either. The Canadians held in the Philippines were not interrogated or accessed by Canadian officials. The Canadian govt wasn't complicit with their detaining, with their abusive treatment, and was of course not withholding Canadian due legal process from them.

    How are people equating individuals held hostage by foreign opportunist rebels in the Philippines with what happened to Khadr that involved direct, and in person, Canadian complicity?

    If anybody could legitimately explain how they are making that comparison..
    Lack of action (as with Khadar) and blocking the family from publicly asking for outside assistance are but two points that fit.

    Done for now the real work requires my time

    IMO

  100. #700

    Default

    Maybe once you're done your real work Thomas you can read the following two links:

    https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../4638/index.do (Khadr 2008)
    https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc.../7842/index.do (Khadr 2010)

    You state you've done research while we've debated & that you're well-informed but you've made some pretty fundamental & grievous errors in stating the facts & circumstances of the case. Perhaps reading the actual SCC judgements will help you iron out the wrinkles in your understanding.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •