# Omar Khadr



## Gurdari (Feb 20, 2007)

Harper should flex what muscle he has and bring this guy home.
Defending yourself against and armed invasion isn't illegal, even if your an Arab teenager.


----------



## 90K (Feb 20, 2007)

Link it for us please


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 21, 2007)

90K said:


> Link it for us please



Link my source for that claim? That self-defence is okay even if you are arabic?

Well, regarding Afghanstan, here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/army.htm

This states there was no real army of Afghanistan, so all combatants would by virtue of resistance be 'unlawful'. Which really violates the spirit of any law... the weakest states then are due no Geneva conventions, or POW rules. Ridiculous, but I also read this from the American Society of International Law:

"The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 - 27 and their annexed Regulations, which updated and codified the laws and customs of land warfare, recognized three categories of lawful combatants: (1) armies or regular forces; (2) irregular forces; and (3) the levée en masse.
28 Article 1 of the Hague Regulations stipulates that the laws, rights, and duties of war apply to both regular and irregular combatants."


Requiring a small resistance force to openly identify themselves to an invading army is tantamount to suicide, imagine if the French resistance had to identify themselves to the Germans? Were they unlawful combatants?


----------



## 90K (Feb 21, 2007)

interesting read. I get the impression it was much easier having thew taliban control the country.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 21, 2007)

Personally - I think the invasion was an illegally conceived example of imperial aggression, and that US could have just acted in accordance with simple protocols (like provide evidence of an accusation) and achieved a better result. The US set itself up to be attacked the same way by countries whose terrorists the US harbors... (Haiti, Cuba, Nicaraugua). 

That said, I thought the Taliban was one of the worst things ever, even just destroying ancient artifacts and oppressing women is horrible, let alone being general, all-around dicks. But that doesn't give anyone the right to kick down their door and start shooting. There are some real assholes in my town, but I don't have the right to go kill them and put someone else in charge of their family... even if my friends all agree that I should.


----------



## 90K (Feb 21, 2007)

Yeah but wasn't the reason to invade Afghanistan more to rid Osama?  I believe the taliban just used there power to the extreme, but it held order. Having made that statement why is it when our country or some other western allies go into a war it is always wrong?  Yet when countries like Afghanistan are pretty much held hostage it is acceptable? I didn't say you said that I'm making a statement on the liberal side.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 21, 2007)

90K said:


> Yeah but wasn't the reason to invade Afghanistan more to rid Osama?  I believe the taliban just used there power to the extreme, but it held order. Having made that statement why is it when our country or some other western allies go into a war it is always wrong?  Yet when countries like Afghanistan are pretty much held hostage it is acceptable? I didn't say you said that I'm making a statement on the liberal side.



After 911, US said hand him over I believe... Taliban asked for evidence, US said F-you hand him over... and then attacked... while in September of that same year Haiti asked for extradition of Emmanuel Constant (covicted in absentia for attrocities) and was ignored. Does Haiti have a right to attack the regime in America? According to US actions - yes. Unless a different set of rules apply to smaller nations.


----------



## 90K (Feb 21, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> After 911, US said hand him over I believe... Taliban asked for evidence, US said F-you hand him over... and then attacked... while in September of that same year Haiti asked for extradition of Emmanuel Constant (covicted in absentia for attrocities) and was ignored. Does Haiti have a right to attack the regime in America? According to US actions - yes. Unless a different set of rules apply to smaller nations.



What did Haiti loose?  Private Haitians! the WTC was a loss of people from around the world! now when does life mean less?  Can't answer that one but the world is a very difficult place and it is never fair.  Governments do things that will beneifit their causes domestic and abroad.  I mean 1995 the Clinton Administration could have gotten Osama handed to them but they opted out.  He was part of the big picture of 9/11 and for years to come it is the way it will be.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 22, 2007)

90K said:


> What did Haiti loose?  Private Haitians! the WTC was a loss of people from around the world! now when does life mean less?  Can't answer that one but the world is a very difficult place and it is never fair.  Governments do things that will beneifit their causes domestic and abroad.QUOTE]
> 
> So what are you saying? Either governments have a right to attack nations that harbour terrorists or not... agree or disagree.


----------



## 90K (Feb 22, 2007)

I agree because it is much larger than you and I.  It has been this way since the beginning of time.  I know protesting brings the issue out, but changing this is not going to happen.  I'm not totally narrow minded but I've seen a few things and it seems that governments will use means to get what they want and not one government on this plant is exempt.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 22, 2007)

90K said:


> I agree because it is much larger than you and I.  It has been this way since the beginning of time.  I know protesting brings the issue out, but changing this is not going to happen.  I'm not totally narrow minded but I've seen a few things and it seems that governments will use means to get what they want and not one government on this plant is exempt.



*So is it okay or not to attack a nation that harbours terrorists? *

And to your point - I agree, every nation must arm itself to the max to get any justice... so unbalanced application of law equals violent measures to achieve ends... making the world, what? Safer?

I should have been an arms dealer...sigh


----------



## 90K (Feb 22, 2007)

Gurdari said:


> *So is it okay or not to attack a nation that harbours terrorists? *
> 
> And to your point - I agree, every nation must arm itself to the max to get any justice... so unbalanced application of law equals violent measures to achieve ends... making the world, what? Safer?
> 
> I should have been an arms dealer...sigh



You perceive the worst in my post.  Are you above reality here?  What are your expectations then?  I know when in South America that the drug cartels clipped a bunch of people because the government was increasing pressure on the drug trade. So the government backed off and the cartels won for that period of time.  

I see this as a real threat and you have to look at the big picture which would be the world and the objectives of any government.  Deals are made everyday and they might not be poised for our approval but it is what makes this place go round and round.

Now you give me something to think about on a valid note here because I believe I'm in the ball park here.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 22, 2007)

90K said:


> You perceive the worst in my post.  Are you above reality here?  What are your expectations then?  I know when in South America that the drug cartels clipped a bunch of people because the government was increasing pressure on the drug trade. So the government backed off and the cartels won for that period of time.
> 
> I see this as a real threat and you have to look at the big picture which would be the world and the objectives of any government.  Deals are made everyday and they might not be poised for our approval but it is what makes this place go round and round.
> 
> Now you give me something to think about on a valid note here because I believe I'm in the ball park here.



Okay let's slow this down. Answer the first question and the let's proceed, ask me one after, and I'll respond, cool?


----------



## 90K (Feb 22, 2007)

alright.  My opinion about harboring terror subjects.
If governments can't work out the details then maybe it should be fair game.
9/11 was more than just Americans that lost there lives it was more about our attack on our soil.  But other countries were here and it was the center of the world economics.  Afganistan knew they were harboring known terror subjects and maybe they were getting a nice check every month for that duty.  We asked and we were denied and the world supported that mission and I'm speaking of that one first.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 22, 2007)

90K said:


> alright.  My opinion about harboring terror subjects.
> If governments can't work out the details then maybe it should be fair game.
> 9/11 was more than just Americans that lost there lives it was more about our attack on our soil.  But other countries were here and it was the center of the world economics.  Afganistan knew they were harboring known terror subjects and maybe they were getting a nice check every month for that duty.  We asked and we were denied and the world supported that mission and I'm speaking of that one first.



Whoa, you asked and were denied? No. They asked for evidence, and US said ask our bombs, they are on their way.
And really, if governments can't work out the details? (like if US ignores the request for the terrorist? Or like Afghanistan asking for some evidence before handing anyone over?) 
And if the response was about hitting terrorists responsible, why not over throw Saudi Arabia first? Most of the hijackers were Saudi, Osama is Saudi, that regime creates much anti-US feeling by the way it maintains power and deals with America...


----------



## 90K (Feb 22, 2007)

I can't agree that afganistan didn't know this guy wasn't dirty!  He was using that contry to train terrorist, call it a bootcamp but they were lethal after completion of the training.  He was kicked out of Africa because that country didn't want him there anymore, it was a cat and mouse game.  they the afgan government opted to play silly and in the process got over thrown and in this case it was warranted.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 22, 2007)

90K said:


> I can't agree that afganistan didn't know this guy wasn't dirty!  He was using that contry to train terrorist, call it a bootcamp but they were lethal after completion of the training.  He was kicked out of Africa because that country didn't want him there anymore, it was a cat and mouse game.  they the afgan government opted to play silly and in the process got over thrown and in this case it was warranted.



Since when is asking for evidence in a criminal investigation, 'silly'?


----------



## 90K (Feb 22, 2007)

That is like saying _wipe the stupid sticker off my forehead_...all the third world nations now are stupid, I think not and you know it as well.
You haven't given me your reply on this very question, I susect you were and are against such a deal. But if your land was put into question because of a bloody attack what should those expectations have been?


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 22, 2007)

90K said:


> That is like saying _wipe the stupid sticker off my forehead_...all the third world nations now are stupid, I think not and you know it as well.
> You haven't given me your reply on this very question, I susect you were and are against such a deal.
> 
> 
> But if your land was put into question because of a bloody attack what should those expectations have been?



I always want to reply, if you catch me avoiding a question - call me on it immediately and I'll get down to biznatch.

So - if my land was attacked, I would figure out who did it, and why. Then using the evidence that convinced me who the culprit was - I would move forward on that, if that means extraditing a criminal, I'd try that. If that requires my nation to abide by the law before I can use that law against another, so be it. I would also examine the causes of the attack, unless I wanted more to come. 

If I throw rocks at a hornet's nest, and get stung - I think I'd change my behavior AND kill the bastard that stung me. Not get a ton of more rocks to show them who's boss.


----------



## 90K (Feb 22, 2007)

Well your land isn't a few acres it is a country so you pretty much have your ear to the ground daily. You'd know who your enemies are.  And if your threw a rock at the hornets nest I'd expect you to use a sling shot!  And if that nest did get you I know you'd spray the piss out of it to rid that nest of any future problems.

  Deplomacy has it's place and when action needed to be taken it was and at first swiftly done.  The terrorist in Afganistan were a hard target so massive amounts of explosive were used and massive amounts of lead has been used.   

Some situations law and order can't be used and in this situation it was truly justified.  I personally don't think our government gave much thought to afganistan other than its terrorist traning camps.  Our country has sat back and let these terror networks become highly organsized to the point now we have to act on it.  I ask this: whose side are you on anyway because realistic logic has gone out the window in dealing with terrorist.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 22, 2007)

90K said:


> Well your land isn't a few acres it is a country so you pretty much have your ear to the ground daily. You'd know who your enemies are.  And if your threw a rock at the hornets nest I'd expect you to use a sling shot!  And if that nest did get you I know you'd spray the piss out of it to rid that nest of any future problems.
> 
> Deplomacy has it's place and when action needed to be taken it was and at first swiftly done.  The terrorist in Afganistan were a hard target so massive amounts of explosive were used and massive amounts of lead has been used.
> 
> Some situations law and order can't be used and in this situation it was truly justified.  I personally don't think our government gave much thought to afganistan other than its terrorist traning camps.  Our country has sat back and let these terror networks become highly organsized to the point now we have to act on it.  I ask this: whose side are you on anyway because realistic logic has gone out the window in dealing with terrorist.



I don't disagree with harsh measures, we just differ as to when and whom they are used against... and the diplomacy the preceeds it. I do NOT think US exhausted diplomatic efforts, in fact I believe the opposite, that invasion was the goal, not a last resort (both Iraq/Afghan). But I'm no State department insider, I get my info from various ources and piece tgether my own opinion... so I make mistakes, some good points (I think) and debate with UN-likeminded people and maybe lean a bit more.

Who's side am I on? On the side of the civilians who get killed everywhere, not on the side of those who profit from war. Or ignore the law. So if someone commits a terrorist act - I am against it... even if it's you. or my brother, or someone in a far off land...

I honestly do not see this as an 'us or them' situation regarding Islam and the west, or religion and secularism, etc. 

And the hornets nest ... goo dpoint I would. I hate hornets. But I wouldn't be shocked if they stung me for throwing rocks at them, in fact - if I was a hornet, I'd do the same.


----------

