Khadr Compensation

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by jstubbs

Regardless of the semantics of the story, how does this play up in the eyes of our greatest ally, the United States? We're apologizing and paying out a convicted terrorist who killed a United States soldier?

You do realize "our greatest ally" created this mess almost 40 years ago? Zbigniew Brzezinski, the father of modern ISIS? Our greatest ally that gave control of Afghanistan to the mujahideen - the Jihad? The Taliban? What do you think it means when our "greatest ally" arms the rebels?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

I'm not looking to win an argument.

Question is - is Khadr guilty? So many conflicting stories from the people that were there. If you actually do some research on the case, you'll realize that. If the pineapple wasn't Russian - then it was friendly fire. Who's to blame then?


And to boot, what Khadr did wasn't illegal at the time - the US changed the rules just for terrorism. Toss out the Geneva convention, to heck with the UN. You may want to read up on "murder in violation of the laws of war". Whether I agree or not, matters not.

Since when does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists? Spies, saboteurs, and combatants that are purposely out of uniform to hide among civilians were often shot, because the Geneva Convention was not meant to protect them.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Since when does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists? Spies, saboteurs, and combatants that are purposely out of uniform to hide among civilians were often shot, because the Geneva Convention was not meant to protect them.

Well, question for you then. What do you call it when our greatest ally arms terrorist rebels?

Yes, IHL specifically mentions and in fact prohibits " measures of terrori sm " and " acts of terrorism " . The Fourth Geneva Convention ( Article 33Article 4 ) states that " Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited " , while Additional Protocol II ( ) prohibits " acts of terrorism " against persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities. The main aim is to emphasise that neither individuals, nor the civilian population may be subject to collective punishments, which, among other things, obviously induce a state of terror.

Both Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions also prohibit acts aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population. " The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited " (AP I, Article 51Article 13 (2) and AP II, (2)).

Khadr was taken into custody for throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier. If they knew at the moment it wasn't him - would he have still gone to Bagram and Guantanamo? The man was charged with murder.

Don't forget, Khadr still spent 13 years in prison. 10 of those in Guantanamo, which I'm sure was a pleasant walk in the park.

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

Not that I'm sure sns2 can't stick up for himself, but how do you figure that someone who has been a moderator for no more than a week "locks and deletes threads all the time"
He specifically stated that swearing and insults won't be tolerated, but discussion will. If you're all for people swearing and insulting each other...than I don't think many care that you seldom post here anymore.

I guess I didn't realize sns2 had only recently become a moderator. Thank you for pointing that out.

I suppose my post was prompted by the fact that society now requires all of us to, at all costs, remain politically correct and that AO has completely bought into that. I don't think I'm alone in finding it all quite tiresome.

As for my being in favour of swearing and insulting others on here, the posts I have made over the years speak for themselves. You would be hard pressed to find any of that in any of them.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Well, question for you then.

Khadr was taken into custody for throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier. If they knew at the moment it wasn't him - would he have still gone to Bagram and Guantanamo? The man was charged with murder.

Don't forget, Khadr still spent 13 years in prison. 10 of those in Guantanamo, which I'm sure was a pleasant walk in the park.

Whether he killed the medic or not, he should have been hung just for taking up arms as part of a terrorist organization.

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Whether he killed the medic or not, he should have been hung just for taking up arms as part of a terrorist organization.

Ahh, now you want to change the rules.

What part of "his father gave him to the Taliban" do you not understand?

[270WIN]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

If your idea of free speech is being able to curse and insult people feel free to leave
It has nothing to do with being politically correct and has everything to do with being respectful towards others
Cat

See #94 above.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Ahh, now you want to change the rules.

What part of "his father gave him to the Taliban" do you not understand?

So if he really didn't want to be a terrorist, why didn't he simply walk up to the first soldiers he saw, with his arms in the air and surrender, instead of throwing a grenade at a medic?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Ahh, now you want to change the rules.

What part of "his father gave him to the Taliban" do you not understand?

You just don't get it. At 15 he was old enough to agree with the path he was sent on. He shouldn't be getting $10mil, case closed. He shouldn't even be in Canada.

[KGB]

I hope that the family of the fallen soldiers will be able to sue the living daylight out of Khadr, garnish his wages for the rest of his life! He didn't deserve this money! Damn too bad Americans didn't put a bullet into his head when they found him!

[wags]

Originally Posted by Newview01

You just don't get it. At 15 he was old enough to agree with the path he was sent on. He shouldn't be getting $10mil, case closed. He shouldn't even be in Canada.

What about at 9?

What about all those Boko Haram girls? I mean, they were kidnapped, but somehow many of them are blowing themselves up in their cause.

What about the fact that no one saw this child throw a grenade due to the wall between them?

Some certainly don't get it!

Cheers

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by ESOXangler

He didn't murder him, that solider was from an invading country and their had been a fire fight. He was a uneducated, sheltered kid that was mentally abused by his disgustIng family. Then we, the civilized world took him and tortured the hell out of him. We broke our own rules on a kid. If anything we should be paying because we became the enemy.

While I see both sides of the argument when I was 15 I knew right from wrong. Being taught to be bad is no excuse under the law. In fact being 15 doesn't stop you from even being tried as an adult in Canada.

Khadr wasn't a soldier. He was fighting for a dangerous and repressive terrorist group. Nothing said has absolved him nor his family with deep terrorist ties from the crimes they committed.

Did he deserve punishment? Absolutely. Where the Americans harsh. Absolutely. Suck it up when you leave Canada. You should always expect the worst treatment when you leave Canada and break the law.

Does he deserve an apology? Never. Does he owe Canada an apology? Absolutely. Should he get $10MM. Never in ten million years.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

I'm not looking to win an argument.

Question is - is Khadr guilty? So many conflicting stories from the people that were there. If you actually do some research on the case, you'll realize that. If the pineapple wasn't Russian - then it was friendly fire. Who's to blame then?


And to boot, what Khadr did wasn't illegal at the time - the US changed the rules just for terrorism. Toss out the Geneva convention, to heck with the UN. You may want to read up on "murder in violation of the laws of war". Whether I agree or not, matters not.

Is a terrorist capable of throwing an American grenade or can they only be thrown by Americans?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Is a terrorist capable of throwing an American grenade or can they only be thrown by Americans?

Come on now, I am sure that terrorists have no access to American weapons.

[silverdoctor]

Folks have clearly not put any time into researching the case, you just want blood.

Time will tell, already some interesting movements on his appeal in the USA.

[alpinebeers]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Folks have clearly not put any time into researching the case, you just want blood.

Time will tell, already some interesting movements on his appeal in the USA.

You keep implying that people have not put any research into this case because their opinion is different then yours.

You know just as much about who has researched this case as we do about your research on it

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by alpinebeers

You keep implying that people have not put any research into this case because their opinion is different then yours.

You know just as much about who has researched this case as we do about your research on it

Really...

You know that he wasn't the only survivor?
You know that US military were shooting on site any survivors?
You know that Kahdr was injured in both eyes, and shot through the back - and likely not able to toss a grenade.
You know that what he did WASN'T illegal at the time - that the US government changed the rules AFTER the fact.
You know that it's likely a US M-67 grenade that killed the medic?
You know there is conflicting stories from the US soldiers that were ACTUALLY THERE?
You know that conspiracy to commit - one of the charges that Khadr faced - isn't actaully a war crime, and that's upheld now by the US courts?
The list goes on and on.

Wow, you must have done alot of research.

[rugatika]

Khadr was there fighting with terrorists to kill Americans. Period.

You shouldn't get 10 million of my hard earned dollars and an apology for doing that.

[jcurl]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Khadr was there fighting with terrorists to kill Americans. Period.

You shouldn't get 10 million of my hard earned dollars and an apology for doing that.

He was killing americans not canadians. Not saying that's okay though.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Khadr was there fighting with terrorists to kill Americans. Period.

You shouldn't get 10 million of my hard earned dollars and an apology for doing that.

Exactly, he was part of a terrorist organization , and was trying to kill soldiers. Attempted murder is still a crime, even if you don't succeed. Even conspiring to commit murder is a crime.

[alpinebeers]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Really...

You know that he wasn't the only survivor?
You know that US military were shooting on site any survivors?
You know that Kahdr was injured in both eyes, and shot through the back - and likely not able to toss a grenade.
You know that what he did WASN'T illegal at the time - that the US government changed the rules AFTER the fact.
You know that it's likely a US M-67 grenade that killed the medic?
You know there is conflicting stories from the US soldiers that were ACTUALLY THERE?
You know that conspiracy to commit - one of the charges that Khadr faced - isn't actaully a war crime, and that's upheld now by the US courts?
The list goes on and on.

Wow, you must have done alot of research.

Yes REALLY ..... Unless your the long island medium posing under a different name then maybe you do. But odds are your not so i'm going to stick to my statement that you have no idea who has done what research on here.

What i'm saying is don't just assume your the only person who knows anything on the subject. Its a typical argument for folks like you. Because you made 8 bullet points in a row makes you no more of an expert then the next guy on here nor proves how much research you've done. 10 min on google and I can come up with the same arguments.

I have very limited knowledge on the subject besides he was convicted on his crimes, until something changes on that my argument stands and am not afraid to admit that. He deserves nothing more then to be shipped back to the hell hole he took a stand for and left there to rot. Him and his whole family

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by alpinebeers

I have very limited knowledge on the subject besides he was convicted on his crimes, until something changes on that my argument stands and am not afraid to admit that. He deserves nothing more then to be shipped back to the hell hole he took a stand for and left there to rot. Him and his whole family

Everyone is entitles to an opinion, but it doesn't mean squat in a court of law.

I for one am interested to hear all the facts in the case, they should come out in the years to come.

[dgl1948]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Really...

You know that he wasn't the only survivor?
You know that US military were shooting on site any survivors?
You know that Kahdr was injured in both eyes, and shot through the back - and likely not able to toss a grenade.
You know that what he did WASN'T illegal at the time - that the US government changed the rules AFTER the fact.
You know that it's likely a US M-67 grenade that killed the medic?
You know there is conflicting stories from the US soldiers that were ACTUALLY THERE?
You know that conspiracy to commit - one of the charges that Khadr faced - isn't actaully a war crime, and that's upheld now by the US courts?
The list goes on and on.


Wow, you must have done alot of research.

You know how many battles he was in and how many of our allies he may have killed?

[recce43]

should have left to bleed out on the battlefield

[alpinebeers]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

Everyone is entitles to an opinion, but it doesn't mean squat in a court of law.

I for one am interested to hear all the facts in the case, they should come out in the years to come.

Your right an opinion doesn't mean squat in a court of law. First thing we've agreed on. Its a good thing the court of law you speak of found him GUILTY of murder.

Send the scum bag back where he belongs END OF STORY

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Whether he killed the medic or not, he should have been hung just for taking up arms as part of a terrorist organization.

Part of the evidence against him was a video showing him and some buddies making IEDs, something his defenders gloss over. Read this.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/t...et-khadr-file/

Grizz

[silverdoctor]

Originally Posted by alpinebeers

Its a good thing the court of law you speak of found him GUILTY of murder.

Ummm, sorry, no. They didn't find him guilty.

The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) allows anyone suspected of terrorism to be held indefinitely without trial. He likely would have faced life in Guantanamo and never gotten back to Canada - which is why he entered a guilty plea, sign the papers and get it over with.

I'd say most people would sell their siblings to avoid a life of torture etc.

So you didn't read it all.

[Norwest Alta]

As a taxpayer I'm tired of these payouts.
As a voter I'm tired of apologies

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

Part of the evidence against him was a video showing him and some buddies making IEDs, something his defenders gloss over. Read this.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/t...et-khadr-file/

Grizz

He also admitted to throwing a grenade at American soldiers. And he should know, he was there. As to the people that will argue that he admitted to things that he didn't do, you weren't there,so you have no way of knowing what he did or didn't do .As to not being found guilty, confessing a crime does not mean that you are not guilty, you may not go through a long drawn out trial because of the confession, but you still have a criminal record because you were found guilty.

[Nester]

Oh.....what has this country of ours become