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

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by blankall

Exactly this. No one has to prove what bombs were used where. If he built bombs for an organization that was using some of those bombs on civilians, then he's guilty. Groups like Al Queda tend to broadcast quite widely to their followers that they targeting civilians and are quick to take credit for such attacks. So I doubt he'd be very successful in arguing those bombs were for strictly military purposes.

If Al Queda has a pile of 10 bombs, you don't have to trace the use each particular bomb. Building any bomb for them is a crime.

But that's not true. If you're charging him with bomb making under the anti terrorism act you have to prove what the bombs were used for and where they were used.

http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~cforcese/oth...patriation.pdf

Assuming there is reliable evidence to establish that Omar voluntarily planted IEDs and threw a grenade, the key issue would be the location of the explosive devices and who had access to the area. The charge sheet does not indicate where the IEDs were allegedly planted, other than in areas where U.S. and coalition forces were known
to travel. The provision only covers IEDs that were planted in a place of public use.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Except that the vast majority of bombs IEDs planted by the Taliban were targeting combatants, not civilians. In my mind, to label Khadr a terrorist one would have to prove that he built an IED that he knew at the time would be used to target non-combatants.

I am not sure I agree with your statement that IEDs were targeting combatants not civilians.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-device-deaths

But the IED – improvised explosive device – not only strikes foreign troops on ground patrols and in road convoys, it is also an indiscriminate terror weapon killing and injuring thousands of civilians.

IEDs are a terror weapon, they are the poor mans carpet bombing.

With respect, I can't complete the mental gymnastics to get to where I don't see Omar as a being involved in a terrorist organization and by extension a terrorist (this sets aside the ####ing poor mess of a life he had prior to ending up in that organization).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

But that's not true. If you're charging him with bomb making under the anti terrorism act you have to prove what the bombs were used for and where they were used.

http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~cforcese/oth...patriation.pdf







[/FONT]

I disagree pretty strongly on this. If you are handing over bombs to Al Queda, and they using some of the bombs to attack civilians, it makes no difference which bomb they're pulling out of their stockpile at any given time. Similarly, I wouldn't have to show which bullet actually hit a target.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I am not sure I agree with your statement that IEDs were targeting combatants not civilians.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-device-deaths



IEDs are a terror weapon, they are the poor mans carpet bombing.

With respect, I can't complete the mental gymnastics to get to where I don't see Omar as a being involved in a terrorist organization and by extension a terrorist (this sets aside the ####ing poor mess of a life he had prior to ending up in that organization).

(a) that article only states that Taliban IEDs injured and killed both ISAF soldiers and civilians. It doesn't seem to provide any breakdown in terms of combatant casualties and civilian casualties; and
(b) the article is primarily discussing the post-2004 period when IEDs became far more prevalent in Afghanistan. Khadr was already in Guantanamo at that point.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Makarov

(a) that article only states that Taliban IEDs injured and killed both ISAF soldiers and civilians. It doesn't seem to provide any breakdown in terms of combatant casualties and civilian casualties; and
(b) the article is primarily discussing the post-2004 period when IEDs became far more prevalent in Afghanistan. Khadr was already in Guantanamo at that point.

Correct on both accounts.

There isn't a lot of data from that early in the conflict.

That being said, I believe (based on discussions with serving members) that you are being naive is you believe that the IED was "aimed" at combatants only. There is plenty of evidence as the conflict moved forward that IEDs were used against civilians targets IE: civilians were the main target, as apposed to collateral causalities.

As I said, the IED is a terror weapon.

At the end of the day Omar was involved in a terrorist organization that committed terrorist acts.

As I said, I can't reach the same conclusion as you.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by blankall

I disagree pretty strongly on this. If you are handing over bombs to Al Queda, and they using some of the bombs to attack civilians, it makes no difference which bomb they're pulling out of their stockpile at any given time. Similarly, I wouldn't have to show which bullet actually hit a target.

Would be interested to see you tie this to applicable statutes rather than just "I feel that...".

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Would be interested to see you tie this to applicable statutes rather than just "I feel that...".

You don't need extra statutes the aiding and abetting laws in Canada are well developed. From the criminal code:

Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

Combine that with the multitude of terrorism offences:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6/page-16.html

It wouldn't take much. Khadr's translation services would qualify. His bomb making would more than qualify. If he was sweeping the floors or preparing meals for them he might be guilty.

I think this is all a bit of a moot point now though, and I don't see why people continuously defend Khadr's actions. Yes his father may have brainwashed him, but the actions themselves were quite awful. There's no maybes about it. He was building bombs for terrorists. Many of those bombs were used on civilians. Whether the terrorist who killed a bunch of kids happened to pick up a bomb Khadr built or some other person built that day is meaningless.

It's okay to push the point that Khadr was a child and that his rights were violated. However, I don't see why people feel the need to defend what he was actually doing. He's on video doing it.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by blankall

You don't need extra statutes the aiding and abetting laws in Canada are well developed. From the criminal code:

Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

Combine that with the multitude of terrorism offences:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6/page-16.html

It wouldn't take much. Khadr's translation services would qualify. His bomb making would more than qualify. If he was sweeping the floors or preparing meals for them he might be guilty.

I think this is all a bit of a moot point now though, and I don't see why people continuously defend Khadr's actions. Yes his father may have brainwashed him, but the actions themselves were quite awful. There's no maybes about it. He was building bombs for terrorists. Many of those bombs were used on civilians. Whether the terrorist who killed a bunch of kids happened to pick up a bomb Khadr built or some other person built that day is meaningless.

It's okay to push the point that Khadr was a child and that his rights were violated. However, I don't see why people feel the need to defend what he was actually doing. He's on video doing it.

Where are you getting this from? The bold part? I'm not at all an expert in law but I have to think you're a bit crazy here. To be a party to an offense, I would assume you have to have someone who is the principal actor in the offense. You can't just say Al Qaeda blows people up. They're guilty without trial. So Khadr is too. If you had arrested Khadr Sr. and proved he blew up a bunch of kids with Jr's bomb, you'd be on to something.

The U of O study I referenced was very clear to point out all of the charges possible against Khadr are wholly dependent on proof of him throwing the grenade and proof of his bombs being used in civilian areas. Neither of those proofs exist.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by blankall

You don't need extra statutes the aiding and abetting laws in Canada are well developed. From the criminal code:

Every one is a party to an offence who
(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

Combine that with the multitude of terrorism offences:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6/page-16.html

It wouldn't take much. Khadr's translation services would qualify. His bomb making would more than qualify. If he was sweeping the floors or preparing meals for them he might be guilty.

I think this is all a bit of a moot point now though, and I don't see why people continuously defend Khadr's actions. Yes his father may have brainwashed him, but the actions themselves were quite awful. There's no maybes about it. He was building bombs for terrorists. Many of those bombs were used on civilians. Whether the terrorist who killed a bunch of kids happened to pick up a bomb Khadr built or some other person built that day is meaningless.

It's okay to push the point that Khadr was a child and that his rights were violated. However, I don't see why people feel the need to defend what he was actually doing. He's on video doing it.

You're missing the mens rea element. At the very least, Khadr would have have knowledge (or be willfully blind to the fact) that whomever he was assisting was intending to commit a terrorist act and that his actions actually assisted that terrorist act. I just haven't seen any evidence of that.

I'm not defending Khadr's actions. I've repeatedly suggested that Khadr's actions were likely treasonous. Frankly, I'm not really a fan of anyone who builds bombs. I just think we should be accurate. I don't think he was a terrorist.

Anyway, I don't think I'm going to change your or blankall's (or other's) opinions on this point. And, as others have suggested, it's not really relevant to the settlement issue.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Except that the vast majority of bombs IEDs planted by the Taliban were targeting combatants, not civilians. In my mind, to label Khadr a terrorist one would have to prove that he built an IED that he knew at the time would be used to target non-combatants.

IED are land mines they're indiscriminate. They target anything that drives down the road, and civilian vehicles have been hit.

Also as the war went down and the bombs got bigger and bigger they were also deployed in choke points that were often surrounded by civilian homes.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They were removed they were not the government of that country. Beyond that they weren't recognized by the US as a legitimate government, they were never granted recognition.

There is no gray, they weren't a country, they spent as much time terrorizing their own people as they did as a resistance to the coalition

Canada declared the Taliban as an enemy terrorist group, mainly because they provided aid and material support to Al Qeada and bin laden. We do have Omar making bombs though so in a real sense from a Canadian perspective he was a terrorist.

As well He was trained by Al Qaeda members, his old man provided material support and did fund raising that directly benefited Al Qaeda and its cause.

Omar also worked with Al Qaeda as a translator in Afghanistan. By every definition he was a member of a terrorist group. Not the Taliban, but Al Qaeda.

The group that he was with when attacked were foreign fighters as well, not the Taliban, Therefore with a Terrorist Group,

There to me is no debate. He received training from a terrorist group, we have him on video building bombs that were used against the Coalition, and he was a citizen of Canada. On top of it, he was building bombs with Al Qaeda members.

Basically by building those bombs whether they were used by the Taliban or Al Qaeda which were used against the Coalition which included Canada, Omar a Canadian Citizen did perform an act that at the most was treasonous, at the least was providing material or training support to a group that was at war with Canada.

I don't consider him a freedom fighter, or some member of a resistance.

If he was Al Qaeda he was a terrorist

If he identified as Taliban, then he was an insurgent, that was not the government at the time, and spend as much time attacking civilians as it did coalition forces..

To the second part, its irelevant I guess. I had sworn that I wasn't going to get back into this thread. But the portrayal of the acts that Omar did in Afghanistan as somewhat heroic or even justified to me are wrong.

Isn't the whole defense here that he was part of a terrorist group but he was brain washed by his dad so its not his fault.

I understand that they were never officially recognized as the government by the UN, but when the recognized government had been awol for 5 years and the taliban controlled 95% of the country it's difficult to not consider them as the governing body of that country. their neighbouring countries viewed them as such, regardless of their atrocious treatment of their own people. Let's be honest here there are plenty of recognized governments that do the same. I'm not defending their actions at all, or trying to paint a picture of them as freedom fighters, my only argument is that their actions against the coalition do not fit the definition of terrorism, to me I consider it warfare, whether the actions were committed by the taliban or al Qaeda supporting the taliban.

As for Khadr, I don't see his actions as heroic or honourable at all, but a terrorist is defined as a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. We can sit here and debate whether or not the taliban were the government of Afghanistan, I gave you my view on this above, this is where the gray area begins to present itself. The taliban were fighting a US coalition who's goal was to remove them from power over the country of Afghanistan. Since in my opinion they were the defacto governing body of that country at that time I don't agree with the argument that them fighting a coalition force, even one backed by the UN, to be an act of terrorism, a country defendin itself isn't terrorism, even if I don't agree with their actions or ideology overall. I also don't consider the United States' combat actions during their non UN backed invasion of Iraq to be terrorism. I see both situations simply as war. While Khadr was certainly involved with al Qaeda, even trained by them, in my opinion without him commiting an actual act of terrorism, I don't agree with labelling him a terrorist. This isn't meant to glorify him or his side, I'm just saying that by definition he is not a terrorist, even if he was making bombs for al Qaeda or the taliban. If providing weapons to al Qaeda makes you a terrorist, what does that make the US government? If the taliban are considered terrorists and therefore not recognized by the UN as a legitimate government yet the UN recognized American government can go to war with a country against the UN's wishes, what does that say about the legitimacy of the UN?

War really blurs the lines between right and wrong, I guess I just see what he did as understandable for lack of a better term. Especially when his age and upbringing are taken into consideration. But even with blurred lines I can't consider what the government did as understandable. Consider again the definition of a terrorist, a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. A kid throwing a grenade at and making bombs to fight opposition forces during a war, to me doesn't seem to fit that description, but it does seem describe what our government did or at the very least complied to have done to him. Yet neither in my view are considered a terrorists or a terrorist group in the case of the government. With that being said neither side should be considered saints either by any means.

For what it's worth I agree with a lot of what you wrote, just not that any ties to or involvement with terrorist groups makes you a terrorist, I save that distinction for the cowards who carry out the actual acts and attacks themselves.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

He was building bombs for a terrorist group. he was trained by Al Qaeda at their camps, and he worked directly with Al Qaeda.

So to me that makes him a terrorist, it doesn't matter if he actively planted bombs or not.

It would be similar to the IRA bomb makers and even the ISIS bomb makers who don't blow up the bombs themselves. They're a active member of a terrorist group.

Quoting you because I'd love you to answer my bolded question below.

Originally Posted by blankall

It wouldn't take much. Khadr's translation services would qualify. His bomb making would more than qualify. If he was sweeping the floors or preparing meals for them he might be guilty.

I think this is all a bit of a moot point now though, and I don't see why people continuously defend Khadr's actions. Yes his father may have brainwashed him, but the actions themselves were quite awful. There's no maybes about it. He was building bombs for terrorists. Many of those bombs were used on civilians. Whether the terrorist who killed a bunch of kids happened to pick up a bomb Khadr built or some other person built that day is meaningless.

It's okay to push the point that Khadr was a child and that his rights were violated. However, I don't see why people feel the need to defend what he was actually doing. He's on video doing it.

I'm not defending anything he did. I'm just not sure what else he realistically could have done in his situation. I've posted this same question a few times already in this thread and never received a response. Let's try bold text:

what action(s)/decision(s) could Khadr have made differently in his life up to the point of him [allegedly] pulling the pin on a grenade?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Quoting you because I'd love you to answer my bolded question below.



I'm not defending anything he did. I'm just not sure what else he realistically could have done in his situation. I've posted this same question a few times already in this thread and never received a response. Let's try bold text:

what action(s)/decision(s) could Khadr have made differently in his life up to the point of him [allegedly] pulling the pin on a grenade?

Put his fricken hands up, and say "Hey man I'm a teenager and I don't want to die"

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Put his fricken hands up, and say "Hey man I'm a teenager and I don't want to die"

It's all so easy...

Edit: I seriously hope this is a joke because it's a GD stupid thing to say

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Put his fricken hands up, and say "Hey man I'm a teenager and I don't want to die"

There are photos in an article posted in this thread that show him laying under a pile of rubble when they found him. Does this not suggest to you that the way you may believe the events unfolded and the way one of the multiple military statements suggested the events unfolded may not be accurate?

[Snuffleupagus]

I can't believe this thread

When hockey fans argue whether a person making bombs for Al Qaeda should be considered a terrorist or not it makes me think this great country of Canada is slowly loosing it's soul and common sense

[CaptainCrunch]

Of course its not a joke, its an asinine answer to what I feel is a bit of a silly question. Asking me what he should have done is irrelevant. The bottom line fact is that he did it, he had his own path that he followed.

I don't know how brain washed Khadr was, or if he was merely willingly following in the path of his father.

The question that is asked is a trap question because no matter how I answer it, the answer is going to be solidly called b$$#####.

If I say he should have surrendered when the the fire fight started or that he should have taken shelter and hid until the fighting is over would be equally ridiculed on one side, as the other side would ridicule me if I said, kill em all, its ok he was a brain washed robot and a complete victim.

So yeah, I answered the way that I did because it doesn't matter.

The question is almost on the same level as "Hey do you still beat your wife"

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I can't believe this thread

When hockey fans argue whether a person making bombs for Al Qaeda should be considered a terrorist or not it makes me think this great country of Canada is slowly loosing it's soul and common sense

People who spread white nationalist propaganda are in no position to comment on the soul of Canada.

As a country, we failed Khadr by not ensuring his rights were upheld.

The argument is an interesting one to have. How do we define terrorist, and is there a difference between adults who join terrorist groups and children who are indoctrinated into them. As usual, there is a level of nuance required to form a full understanding of the issue. It may not lead to a different conclusion, but brushing this issue off as simple serves only to placate simple minds.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The question is almost on the same level as "Hey do you still beat your wife"

Forget the whole Khadr things for a minute, can you explain how powderjukie's question is anything like that? I agree with you not knowing enough details to answer his question and that any answer could be challenged, but in my opinion that's just a very bizarre comparison. One question has a definitive answer and the other is extremely complex to answer.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

People who spread white nationalist propaganda are in no position to comment on the soul of Canada.

Last time. Anti Sharia Law is not "white nationalist propaganda" and again last time, I'm not "white"

please just stop with your pro Islam crapola, I have a feeling you would support bin laden if he was alive

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

As a country, we failed Khadr by not ensuring his rights were upheld.

Wrong, his father failed him, as a country our intelligence agency should have thrown him from the country when he was known for supporting terrorism.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The argument is an interesting one to have. How do we define terrorist, and is there a difference between adults who join terrorist groups and children who are indoctrinated into them. As usual, there is a level of nuance required to form a full understanding of the issue. It may not lead to a different conclusion, but brushing this issue off as simple serves only to placate simple minds.

Maybe we have it all wrong, it's not the young terrorists fault it's the teachers fault

I'll tell you who's fault it really is!!! It's Islams fault

Religion of peace my ass