Wetcoaster Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 Except that Omar would already be dead since his trial is now over. Oh, and he would be amongst millions that had a similar fate. But sure, THAT analogy is perfectly valid. Of course it is, it fits in with your argument, and that which does not is silly, a tangent, or uniformed. Rest assured, at the end of the day, international law and Charter rights will re-unite Canada's self described Al Quada family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 1, 2010 Share Posted November 1, 2010 What are you babbling on about yet again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 The analogy of the trials being something that Stalin would love. Stalin loved KILLING his political opponants, not just enemy combatants, and killed millions of his own citizens. I don't think the US or Canada has done that. But apparently making the comparision isn't silly. No doubt because it re-inforces your point of view. And I will continually point out that the charter is going to eventually do a good job of re-unitied Canada's self described Al Queda family. You know, the whole bring Omar back to his family thing? The family that describes themselves as an Al Queda family? What's so confusing about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 upwards of 100 000 innocent iraqi citizens have been killed since the invasion........I lay that completely at the doorstep of the US of A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 No, I am highlighting how you went on a silly bizarre tangent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
>you Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 upwards of 100 000 innocent iraqi citizens have been killed since the invasion........I lay that completely at the doorstep of the US of A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlayerS_BoxeR Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 100,000 innocent iraqis has nothing to do with this. it is about a man with connections to al queda, who's own family admitted they are an al queda family. he really shouldn't have any rights as a canadian citizen he was fighting overseas for the other side. in no way should he get a chance to serve less than the deal he bargained for. and he needs to be "de-radicalized" as the media puts it, before he can return to society. maybe he is already, i hope he is. hopefully he wants to live peacefully. he hasn't put himself in a position where the "innocent until proven guilty" thing should apply, he was at war against our country and our allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
>you Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 We're talking about Iraq, right? That part doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlayerS_BoxeR Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 he was a member of al queda. he was fighting against our allies the US and with the same people we were fighting in afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
>you Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 As a 15 year old, eh.... I remember what I believed in at that age... virtually brainwashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 100,000 innocent iraqis has nothing to do with this. it is about a man with connections to al queda, who's own family admitted they are an al queda family. he really shouldn't have any rights as a canadian citizen he was fighting overseas for the other side. in no way should he get a chance to serve less than the deal he bargained for. and he needs to be "de-radicalized" as the media puts it, before he can return to society. maybe he is already, i hope he is. hopefully he wants to live peacefully. he hasn't put himself in a position where the "innocent until proven guilty" thing should apply, he was at war against our country and our allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 age shouldnt be as big of a factor as everyone makes it out to be. fact is he was an enemy of war. he may not be anymore but he shouldn't be aloud to re-join society until it can be gauranteed that he is not. he was out of the country for years before being captured, being trained in pakistan. he was a canadian citizen at that time out of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlayerS_BoxeR Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 age shouldnt be as big of a factor as everyone makes it out to be. fact is he was an enemy of war. he may not be anymore but he shouldn't be aloud to re-join society until it can be gauranteed that he is not. he was out of the country for years before being captured, being trained in pakistan. he was a canadian citizen at that time out of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 age shouldnt be as big of a factor as everyone makes it out to be. fact is he was an enemy of war. he may not be anymore but he shouldn't be aloud to re-join society until it can be gauranteed that he is not. he was out of the country for years before being captured, being trained in pakistan. he was a canadian citizen at that time out of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Nice try but not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympic Canuck Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 I find some of the wailing over poor Mr. Kadr to be surreal myself. Granted it's not right to torture even enemy captured soldiers, but right or wrongly, this is an enemy captured soldier who should be happy he wasn't shot and killed in the firefight that caused all this issue. Frankly, if they want to rehab him, go ahead, but I don't want him in this country. He's afgani now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShaunz Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 ok, you guys are going to have to excuse my ignorance on the issue, but I got a question. Khadr was fighting for al Queda (his Canadian citizenship is not relevant at this point as I see it), and al Queda has been fighting the US military for x amount of years. My question is why is he being charged for killing a US soldier when he was in a "war" against them?? Does that mean that all the confirmed kills from the US could be charged to the soldiers with them should (I know its not exactly likely) the al Queda win?? I'm looking at this as a hypothetical scenario as if the al Queda were a country themselves. I just don't understand how a guy can be charged with murder for fighting on his side of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Then argue the magnitude of human suffering of the stalin regime versus taking some terrorists to task and then tell me the analogy is still apt you silly bugger. I tire of your writing me off with one liners so it's about time for fair play. Unfortunately the personal rebuttals I give are deleted even if they could be helpful in your own life. Or we could get off of the whole personal sniping and you can explain how it's not true that an analogy between the genocidal Stalin and one minor kangarooo court in Cuba is apt. Heck, you want apt, let's compare the kangaroo court in Cuba with the human rights tribunal right here in BC that allows you to extort retribution out of misspeaking people and some complimentary gifts to boot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 ok, you guys are going to have to excuse my ignorance on the issue, but I got a question. Khadr was fighting for al Queda (his Canadian citizenship is not relevant at this point as I see it), and al Queda has been fighting the US military for x amount of years. My question is why is he being charged for killing a US soldier when he was in a "war" against them?? Does that mean that all the confirmed kills from the US could be charged to the soldiers with them should (I know its not exactly likely) the al Queda win?? I'm looking at this as a hypothetical scenario as if the al Queda were a country themselves. I just don't understand how a guy can be charged with murder for fighting on his side of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.