Omar F*****G Khadr is getting $10.5 milion

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Who invaded who?

Since when was Al-Qaeda or the Taliban invited to Afghanistan to run the country?

Khadr was a terrorist making bombs to kill military coalition troops made up from 59 countries who were invited to clear the country from the perverted Islamic freaks that were launching terrorist attacks worldwide for over a dozen years.

Talk about folks can't parse the difference

creating IEDs to attack an foreign invading force is still a lot different that killing civilians.

LOL some folks STILL can't parse the difference.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Who invaded who?

Since when was Al-Qaeda or the Taliban invited to Afghanistan to run the country?

Khadr was a terrorist making bombs to kill military coalition troops made up from 59 countries who were invited to clear the country from the perverted Islamic freaks that were launching terrorist attacks worldwide for over a dozen years.

Talk about folks can't parse the difference

Invited? That's what you're going with? Not that I agree with this practice, but the way the Taliban took control of that country by a violent coup wasn't exactly an isolated occurrence in that country or globally for that matter.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Invited? That's what you're going with? Not that I agree with this practice, but the way the Taliban took control of that country by a violent coup wasn't exactly an isolated occurrence in that country or globally for that matter.

Reviewing the origins of the Taliban in Afghanistan certainly doesn't make the United States a more sympathetic character.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Who invaded who?

Since when was Al-Qaeda or the Taliban invited to Afghanistan to run the country?

Khadr was a terrorist making bombs to kill military coalition troops made up from 59 countries who were invited to clear the country from the perverted Islamic freaks that were launching terrorist attacks worldwide for over a dozen years.

Talk about folks can't parse the difference

What? The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to oust their government, that's historical fact. In what world are you now arguing that they were invited? Invited by who? Do you actually think Bush was awaiting his invitation before storming over there after 9/11?

It seems you should go back and reread your history of these terrorist organisations prior to 2001 and what occurred between 2001 and July 2002, as well as the history of Afghanistan leading up to this point in time. For instance, the first terrorist attack carried out by al-Qaeda or the Taliban occurred in 1992, just less than a decade prior to Khadr's capture, not "over a dozen years" prior.

The difference between 9 1/2 years and 12+ years isn't significant, but a mounting list of inaccuracies when one recollects history can be damaging to one's understanding of major issues. As always, ignorance breeds hate.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Because it doesn't fit their narrative.

I think everyone understands the only narrative there is, lots just aren't happy about it.
He is a traitor at minimum, and a terrorist at worst - none of which matters when it comes to his country protecting his rights.
That about right?

[jayswin]

nm

[EldrickOnIce]

Nm
He edited, so I deleted my quote of it

[jayswin]

Haha, damn I second guessed my post and you had already responded.

[EldrickOnIce]

Ha. I deleted bud

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

How many people passionately defending Khadr's legal rights were doing the same for Gian Ghomeshi last year?

I was. While I don't like the guy, he has the right to a full, fair and open trial. He had the right to be free of torture before (after and during) said trial. And in open court upon full disclosure it was determined that Lucy DeCoutere was colluding and trying to change the narrative. It lead, in part, to Gomeshi's justified not-guilty verdict.

To use a better example I fully supported Justin Borque's full, open and fair trial. I supported him being on remand in a torture free environment. I'd even argued, if Khadr is guilty of all the allocations that Borque was a bigger terrorist.

The law applies to us all equally.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I think everyone understands the only narrative there is, lots just aren't happy about it.
He is a traitor at minimum, and a terrorist at worst - none of which matters when it comes to his country protecting his rights.
That about right?

Exactly, it doesn't matter what he did or didn't do. He had the right to a fair trial, the right to be torture free, and he was denied both of those.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Exactly, it doesn't matter what he did or didn't do. He had the right to a fair trial, the right to be torture free, and he was denied both of those.

I really wish TRansplant99 could grasp this. He's coming unglued all over the thread and doesn't even really know what people are defending. Either that or he's vehemently arguing against the human rights that keep us near the top of the world, which is actually more scary if that's what he's for.

More than likely though, he's a white conservative that's getting overly emotional at an emotional issue (not the greatest crime) and I think we as Canadians need to brace a little bit for many more like him across this country come next election.

We could have a mini-Trump like rise in our country with many coming out of the woodwork which could undue a lot of the things that we've done to progress as a society.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I really wish TRansplant99 could grasp this. He's coming unglued all over the thread and doesn't even really know what people are defending. Either that or he's vehemently arguing against the human rights that keep us near the top of the world, which is actually more scary if that's what he's for.

More than likely though, he's a white conservative that's getting overly emotional at an emotional issue (not the greatest crime) and I think we as Canadians need to brace a little bit for many more like him across this country come next election.

We could have a mini-Trump like rise in our country with many coming out of the woodwork which could undue a lot of the things that we've done to progress as a society.

well, the fact that the discussion is still at a reasonable pitch is actually a positive imo...

I don't think anyone has really gone over the edge in terms of vitriol or ad hominem attacks... so far at least...

the fact that people from both side of the argument still come to this thread to have debates is a good thing...granted sometimes it can be frustrating, but once one shuts off trying to understand someone's position, you just end up in that kind of echo chamber that begins to compartmentalize ...and polarize the debate..

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What? The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to oust their government, that's historical fact. In what world are you now arguing that they were invited? Invited by who? Do you actually think Bush was awaiting his invitation before storming over there after 9/11?

It seems you should go back and reread your history of these terrorist organisations prior to 2001 and what occurred between 2001 and July 2002, as well as the history of Afghanistan leading up to this point in time. For instance, the first terrorist attack carried out by al-Qaeda or the Taliban occurred in 1992, just less than a decade prior to Khadr's capture, not "over a dozen years" prior.

The difference between 9 1/2 years and 12+ years isn't significant, but a mounting list of inaccuracies when one recollects history can be damaging to one's understanding of major issues.

The Taliban were never a true government in Afghanistan, they were murderous freaks who took the country in an illegal military coup. the minute they refused to hand over bin laden they showed the entire world they were nothing but thugs and idiots, the UN agreed that Hamid Karzai should head up a transitional government as soon as the Taliban were driven out and he as president invited the world to help clean out the perverted mess called the Taliban and Al-Qaeda

And no, after 9-11 Bush didn't need an invitation

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

As always, ignorance breeds hate.

Wrong, actions breed hate and Islam is full of the wrong actions lately

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

The Americans were never a true government in North America, they were murderous freaks who took the country in an illegal military coup. the minute they refused to pay taxes to the Crown they showed the entire world they were nothing but thugs and idiots

.......

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I really wish TRansplant99 could grasp this. He's coming unglued all over the thread and doesn't even really know what people are defending. Either that or he's vehemently arguing against the human rights that keep us near the top of the world, which is actually more scary if that's what he's for.

More than likely though, he's a white conservative that's getting overly emotional at an emotional issue (not the greatest crime) and I think we as Canadians need to brace a little bit for many more like him across this country come next election.

We could have a mini-Trump like rise in our country with many coming out of the woodwork which could undue a lot of the things that we've done to progress as a society.

Where?...seriously....where?

I have said, and still believe, that Khadr should have been charged with treason. No more, and no less.

What happened to him in Gitmo, has no bearing on this as the crime was committed long before he was being detained. I am also of the belief that if he wanted to sue the government, then fine he has every right to. I wish the government had of fought him tooth and nail however, regardless if it cost more than settling.

For this is was told my values lie closer to Afghani's than they do Canadians (which unsurprisingly was ignored completely)....how am i to have any sort of rational discussion with that kind of claptrap coming in response?

As for me being a white conservative? Yeah I am but have zero idea what my skin color has to do with my view. Im certainly not ashamed of it like so many seem to think i should be.

So in conclusion, I "grasp" things just fine (thanks for the condescending #### though), I just dont understand the need for anyone to defend this assclowns actions while he was in Afghanistan and building bombs that were to be used against Canada or its NATO allies. It is a text book example of treason, regardless of his age or circumstances.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I think everyone understands the only narrative there is, lots just aren't happy about it.
He is a traitor at minimum, and a terrorist at worst - none of which matters when it comes to his country protecting his rights.
That about right?

I could understand people simply not being happy about the way the situation played itself out. I disagree however that most understand the reasoning behind the settlement. Too many people keep going back to the "he should have thought about the consequences before he became a terrorist" argument. Or they ignore any of the facts about his age and whether or not he really had a choice in where he ended up. This part is frustrating to me because it seems to demonstrate a lack of basic human decency. I mean if some sick and twisted parent has their kid selling drugs or pimps out their child from a young age and that child is arrested at 15 in a sting operation would these same people be calling the children in these cases whores and drug dealers the same way they are calling Khadr a terrorist?

It's frustrating anyway you look at it, except I don't think the frustration should be aimed at Khadr, we didn't go through what he went through and we don't know all the details surrounding what happened in Afghanistan or in his life leading up to that point, maybe he's playing everyone for a fool, who knows? There's no sense getting all bent out of shape over something that we can't be certain of. Same with the people blasting Trudeau, should he have fought it? Maybe. Should he have not? Maybe. All I know is he is probably in a much better position to make that call than anyone complaining about it.

My frustration is with the way the government treated Khadr, and with the reactions of political opponents. Conservative and Liberal governments of the past screwed up, and a Canadian citizen was wronged, that much we know. Instead of looking at who to blame for the fall out, both parties should be looking at what's best for Canadians, which would be answering the question of how can we best prevent something like this from happening again. Instead the liberals are in damage control and the conservatives are busy trying to get that money to an American war widow. Neither of which is helping Canadians. All the while canadians are losing it over a bunch of money instead of also looking at how did this happen and how can we make sure our government isn't able to do something like this again to anyone. Like it or hate it, we maintain the rights we have by people holding the government accountable.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

The Taliban were never a true government in Afghanistan, they were murderous freaks who took the country in an illegal military coup. the minute they refused to hand over bin laden they showed the entire world they were nothing but thugs and idiots, the UN agreed that Hamid Karzai should head up a transitional government as soon as the Taliban were driven out and he as president invited the world to help clean out the perverted mess called the Taliban and Al-Qaeda

And no, after 9-11 Bush didn't need an invitation


Wrong, actions breed hate and Islam is full of the wrong actions lately

Not defending it, just pointing it out again, many governments have taken power through military coups.

If not handing over bin laden is what made the Taliban thugs and idiots did it do the same for the democratically elected Pakistani government that did the same thing? Should someone be getting invited to oust them as well?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Where?...seriously....where?

I have said, and still believe, that Khadr should have been charged with treason. No more, and no less.

What happened to him in Gitmo, has no bearing on this as the crime was committed long before he was being detained. I am also of the belief that if he wanted to sue the government, then fine he has every right to. I wish the government had of fought him tooth and nail however, regardless if it cost more than settling.

For this is was told my values lie closer to Afghani's than they do Canadians (which unsurprisingly was ignored completely)....how am i to have any sort of rational discussion with that kind of claptrap coming in response?

As for me being a white conservative? Yeah I am but have zero idea what my skin color has to do with my view. Im certainly not ashamed of it like so many seem to think i should be.

So in conclusion, I "grasp" things just fine (thanks for the condescending #### though), I just dont understand the need for anyone to defend this assclowns actions while he was in Afghanistan and building bombs that were to be used against Canada or its NATO allies. It is a text book example of treason, regardless of his age or circumstances.

I've mostly been skimming the past couple of days. So, I don't have a full grasp on who is arguing what.

From what I gather from this post what you're saying is:

1. Khadr's rights were violated and suing the government for said violations was justified and well within his rights to do so.

2. Khadr still should be charged for terrorism, or some derivation pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada and Youth Justice Act.

If I understand that correctly, I have zero issue with that. I think that's all completely fair.

I don't know what the likelihood of a conviction would be. Now don't mistake that for the actual likelihood of conviction. Obviously the confession would be inadmissible; and I don't know if he'd be able to testify given the torture which could jeopardize his ability to give a full defense as it was the government charging him that was culpable and complicit in said torture. But again, I don't know.

Regardless, it seems like you're acknowledging the rights violations, and his ability to seek rectification, while simultaneously stating he should still be charged. I see no problem with any of that.

As I've said before, sometimes bad things happen to bad people. If there's a prima facie case against Khadr and a reasonable chance of conviction, then certainly he should be charged.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Where?...seriously....where?

Jayswin's post reads as though he's suggesting you're not actually doing the bolded portion which you are now asking him to back up his claim of. As for your comment on his post being condescending, I can understand your frustration with being singled out like that, but if you don't like posts like that, maybe consider that before you make similar posts about others whom you disagree with.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I could understand people simply not being happy about the way the situation played itself out. I disagree however that most understand the reasoning behind the settlement. Too many people keep going back to the "he should have thought about the consequences before he became a terrorist" argument. Or they ignore any of the facts about his age and whether or not he really had a choice in where he ended up. This part is frustrating to me because it seems to demonstrate a lack of basic human decency. I mean if some sick and twisted parent has their kid selling drugs or pimps out their child from a young age and that child is arrested at 15 in a sting operation would these same people be calling the children in these cases whores and drug dealers the same way they are calling Khadr a terrorist?

It's frustrating anyway you look at it, except I don't think the frustration should be aimed at Khadr, we didn't go through what he went through and we don't know all the details surrounding what happened in Afghanistan or in his life leading up to that point, maybe he's playing everyone for a fool, who knows? There's no sense getting all bent out of shape over something that we can't be certain of. Same with the people blasting Trudeau, should he have fought it? Maybe. Should he have not? Maybe. All I know is he is probably in a much better position to make that call than anyone complaining about it.

My frustration is with the way the government treated Khadr, and with the reactions of political opponents. Conservative and Liberal governments of the past screwed up, and a Canadian citizen was wronged, that much we know. Instead of looking at who to blame for the fall out, both parties should be looking at what's best for Canadians, which would be answering the question of how can we best prevent something like this from happening again. Instead the liberals are in damage control and the conservatives are busy trying to get that money to an American war widow. Neither of which is helping Canadians. All the while canadians are losing it over a bunch of money instead of also looking at how did this happen and how can we make sure our government isn't able to do something like this again to anyone. Like it or hate it, we maintain the rights we have by people holding the government accountable.

This is a great post imo...

I think this is where a lot of the arguments are coming from.

the settlement was awarded based on the violation of Khadr's rights while at Gitmo, as determined by the Supreme Court.

How how got to Gitmo isn't the issue.

Obviously lots of people disagree with what he did. I certainly don't condone Canadians going over to fight on foreign soil... However there is the mitigating circumstance that he was a kid who was taught to hate...the actual ability for him to make rationale choices in the heat of battle is another. Even the US soldiers present had different recollections of what exactly happened, and some of these guys were Special Forces, not some 15 year old kid...

There's a reason its called the Fog of War.

Did he deserve 10 million? Well, that number is definitely up for debate...would people feel better if that number was 5 Million? 2 Million?

Based on every lawyer I've read, a settlement was going to happen as a result of the SCC decision, it was simply a matter of time and how much... Canada could have continued to fight, however a political calculation was made that this was actually the more inexpensive course of action.

Anyone thinking that this decision was a 'smart' one for the Liberal government just needs to look at the fallout from the polls. This was not a decision made to make political hay: Far, far from it...But they made a determination that it was the "right" decision to make...