• If there's a lobby group to get Omar Khadr acquitted, let's fucking join it.
    133 replies, posted
He shouldn't die, but he shouldn't be treated any better than a murderer. He is a CANADIAN, not an Afghani, which is what you seem to be forgetting. He was attacking the allies of his country in the warzone. He was not an Afghani, nor of Afghan descent, his attack was murder, and should be treated as such.
[QUOTE=Leaf Runner;24228618] 1) U.S. is the reason Taliban was brought to power, they were formerly allies. [/QUOTE] I belive it was actually the mujihadeen we were allied with. The CIA supplied some weapons to resistance fighters to fend off the soviet invasion in the 90's (80's or whatever). The Taliban came into power after that as the original muhjihadeen splintered back into tribal conflicts. Also, the "green resistence" your talking about could be the Northern Alliance (or United Islamic Front as it was known to afghan nationals). They didn't lose although they were almost defeated after the assination of one of thier brightest leaders, Ahmad Shah Massoud, But the U.S. sent troops into afghanistan after 9/11 and were able to help the N.A. re-take Kabul.
[QUOTE=Neinman;24229031]I belive it was actually the mujihadeen we were allied with. The CIA supplied some weapons to resistance fighters to fend off the soviet invasion in the 90's. The Taliban came into power after that as the original muhjihadeen splintered back into tribal conflicts.[/QUOTE] I believe that invasion was in the early-mid '80s, as the Soviet Union disbanded in the early '90s. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan[/url] Looks like I'm wrong, a full 10 years, '79 to '89.
[QUOTE=thirty9th;24220320] Sorry, but my first instinct when I see a young kid isn't to shoot him in the head.[/QUOTE] I remember a soldier recalling the experience of being in an Iraq war-zone. He said something along the lines of: "When you are out there, everybody is a potential threat; even that child across the street could be equipped with an AK-47" Most military soldiers do not discriminate based upon age, although it does have a factor but it is totally different from a civilian POV, had they seen the boy with the grenade in his hand or around him, he would have been in danger of being shot.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;24217323]Did the Geneva Convention cover guerrillas and insurgents as enemy combatants/soldiers?[/QUOTE] This. If they won't fight by the rules why should they have the benefits of them? [QUOTE=Leaf Runner;24228618] The U.S. is literally a bigger enemy to the common Afghan Civilian than the Taliban itself. Fun facts: 1) U.S. is the reason Taliban was brought to power, they were formerly allies. 2) The "Green Resistence" (One of the biggest movements against the Taliban, forgot the actual name, G.R. is one of the nicknames) has fought wars against the Taliban for true freedom. Guess why they lost? U.S. intervened. 3) The U.S. only made the entire situation worse. They are the reason the war happened in the first place. Afghan/Iran/Iraq and any nation involved in the war for that matter do not need U.S.[/QUOTE] Wow, wooooowwwwwwww. Read up on shit before you randomly spout out malarky like this. For starters, the Taliban were around and allied with the Mujahideen on the basis of having a common enemy, the Soviets, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the 80s. They fought along side each other to oust the Soviets. Then when the country went to shit after the Soviets left, the Taliban seized power from the Mujahideen; being that the Mujahideen were simply freedom fighters who no longer had anything to fight for and therefor went to their homes. So no the Mujahideen were our allies, not the Taliban. Secondly, this Green Resistance you speak of is the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance is the remnants of what would have been the Mujahideen had they stayed together after the war with the Soviets. They were the main opposition to the Taliban before we invaded. They had been keeping a low profile until we sent in Special Forces and Security Advisors to bolster their strength. Again, when we invaded we actually went to the Northern Alliance so that we would have an indigenous force that knew the terrain so to speak when we went into the mountains. We did not screw them over by intervening. In fact, we went to great lengths to insure they had what they needed, not to mention the fact that we had U.S. troops helping them in person (I mean regular forces, not SF.) And for your final "fact" that's more of an opinion. In my opinion ousting the Taliban alone was simply cause enough for me. But we'll have to disagree there. Bottom line, to be considered an enemy combatant you must be a uniformed member of the opposing army. Omar Khadr was not wearing a uniform nor was he a member of the Afghani armed forces. He does not deserve the rights of a prisoner of war because he was an (operative words here) [b]irregular guerilla fighter.[/b] He was not bound by the Geneva Convention, and as such he has no right to be afforded the rights provided under it. Have a problem with it? Rewrite the Geneva Convention. The US is not the only country that follows it, most if not all civilised countries do.
I think this entire petition thing, its stupid. You're better off with a facebook group. Because the govt is going to realize this. That kid throwing a grenade at a US soldier is an act of aggression, there for it'll be under the guidelines of war. Regardless of his age, being 15 doesn't mean you have NO idea what that grenade is going to do. I think he should be thrown in as a prisoner of war.. and be tried as a prisoner of war.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;24229478]I think this entire petition thing, its stupid. You're better off with a facebook group. Because the govt is going to realize this.[/QUOTE] What? You don't make any sense, I think that this is one of the best and most urgent cases to use a petition, this is not some trifling matter that can be simply brushed aside or posted on Facebook. [QUOTE=Richard Simmons;24229478]That kid throwing a grenade at a US soldier is an act of aggression, there for it'll be under the guidelines of war. Regardless of his age, being 15 doesn't mean you have NO idea what that grenade is going to do. I think he should be thrown in as a prisoner of war.. and be tried as a prisoner of war.[/QUOTE] Act of agression? Maybe it was an act of survival. Maybe you would do the same thing if under the circumstances. You see, people like you cannot think things clearly in such situations. You see yourself as a perfect person that can judge in an absolute manner regardless of circumstances. Well, that is not the case. The case is that this boy, placed under those very traumatic circumstances, taking into consideration his history, could not have acted in a logical, rational, manner. Especially considering his age. Do you really think that in such a situation a child will not do anything he can to protect himself? It's disgusting to treat this situation without looking into what actually happened, life is not black and white; shades of deep subtleties exist that can tell the difference between life or death. Seriously. This reminds me of Twelve Angry Men.
[QUOTE=archangel125;24217154]That's the kid who was fifteen when he threw a grenade that killed a US soldier. He's on trial in the USA at the moment, having being charged with murder. So killing the soldiers of an enemy country in a combat zone suddenly makes you a murderer? Sickening. He should be treated as a prisoner of war and not as a criminal. Fuck the US Military for charging him with a crime. And that's all I've got to say about that. Rate me disagree if you like. Rating me dumb just makes you a retard.[/QUOTE] You are so fucking ignorant that it is unbelievable. You aren't in the military. You are a fucking Canadian with no importance in the world. You are a disgrace to your country, take the fucking maple leaf out of your avatar.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;24229478]I think this entire petition thing, its stupid. You're better off with a facebook group. Because the govt is going to realize this. That kid throwing a grenade at a US soldier is an act of aggression, there for it'll be under the guidelines of war. Regardless of his age, being 15 doesn't mean you have NO idea what that grenade is going to do. I think he should be thrown in as a prisoner of war.. and be tried as a prisoner of war.[/QUOTE] No. He is not, was not, and has not been a, again key word here, [b]uniformed[/b] member of any armed forces of any country. He is not a prisoner of war. He is a guerilla, an insurgent. He is exactly what the Spanish created the term for. If we are required to follow the Geneva Convention we should follow it to the letter. For him to be an enemy combatant he must be in uniform. And he was not.
[QUOTE=imarawrus;24229957]No. He is not, was not, and has not been a, again key word here, [b]uniformed[/b] member of any armed forces of any country. He is not a prisoner of war. He is a guerilla, an insurgent. He is exactly what the Spanish created the term for. If we are required to follow the Geneva Convention we should follow it to the letter. For him to be an enemy combatant he must be in uniform. And he was not.[/QUOTE] None of them are uniformed. The Taliban, al-queda. They're militants, guerrilla fighters. Its privateering in a form (This time on land). No national markings, and the citizens are acting on their own behalf (That we know of, the government(s) can be pretty opaque). They're still attacking in a country where a war is being conducted. therefor, throwing a fucking explosive at a UNIFORMED soldier of the invading country, is an act of war. [QUOTE=Kontradaz;24229703] Act of agression? Maybe it was an act of survival. Maybe you would do the same thing if under the circumstances. You see, people like you cannot think things clearly in such situations. You see yourself as a perfect person that can judge in an absolute manner regardless of circumstances. Well, that is not the case. The case is that this boy, placed under those very traumatic circumstances, taking into consideration his history, could not have acted in a logical, rational, manner. Especially considering his age. Do you really think that in such a situation a child will not do anything he can to protect himself? It's disgusting to treat this situation without looking into what actually happened, life is not black and white; shades of deep subtleties exist that can tell the difference between life or death.[/QUOTE] Wait, are you saying that he was in a fight for survival, and by instinct threw a grenade at a soldier. Or are you saying that the war has been traumatic, and out of distress he threw it? Please, refine your statement. I think you're tapping at a very interesting read.
He threw a grenade at a US soldier. He should be happy he wasn't killed. That's what I'm gonna finish my part of this discussion with.
Allies don't get tried for manslaughter when friendly fire causes the death of another. This is a similar situation, except the child was being attacked.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.