• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What about this Canada?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
THE STORY BEHIND OMAR KHADR
By Michelle Malkin · February 10, 2005 01:07 PM
Drudge linked to a story last night, still up today, which he headlined: "CANADIAN TEEN WAS ABUSED AT GUANTANAMO, LAWYERS SAY..."

Now, here's the rest of the story. The teen is Omar Khadr, member of an infamous clan in Canada with close ties to al Qaeda. In a CBC documentary, Omar's brothers acknowledged:

“I admit it that we are an al-Qaida family. We had connections to al-Qaida,” said Abdurahman Khadr, who says he resisted his father’s urgings to become a suicide bomber.
But another son, 22-year-old Abdullah Khadr, backed the idea of martyrdom for Islam.

“Every Muslim dreams of being a shahid (martyr) for Islam,” he said. “Everybody dreams of this, even a Christian would like to die for their religion.”


I wrote about Omar here and here.

Refresher:

Before you cry buckets over the poor, abused tots at Gitmo, let's make one thing clear: We are not talking about hordes of peace-loving, cherubic grade-schoolers (like the kind who were freed from Saddam's prisons by American troops). We are talking about four male juveniles captured as active enemy combatants against U.S. forces – and suspected of having links to the al-Qaida terrorist network of Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime.
These "children" weren't playing Nintendo or lolling around in a sandbox when they were taken into custody. They were at war, armed and dangerous, carrying out jihad.

One of the youths reportedly in custody at Gitmo is 16-year-old Omar Khadr, who, as I noted last week, is a suspected al-Qaida soldier accused of lobbing the hand grenade that killed Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, a 28-year-old medic with the U.S. Special Forces. At least one eyewitness said Khadr was no confused little boy. He knew exactly what he was doing: trying to kill Americans.


And:

[Omar]is in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay for his alleged role in an ambush of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan last summer. Omar is accused of lobbing the hand grenade that killed Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, a 28-year-old medic with the U.S. Special Forces.
"That wasn't a panicky teen-ager we encountered that day," Sergeant First Class Layne Morris of South Jordan, Utah, who lost his right eye in the ambush, told the Boston Globe last month. "That was a trained al-Qaida who wanted to make his last act on earth the killing of an American."

Speer left behind a wife and two children, ages 3 and 11 months. Just days before his murder, Speer had selflessly walked into a minefield to rescue two wounded Afghan children.


Judi MacLeod at Canada Free Press has excellent coverage of the press conference the Khadr family and their lawyers held yesterday:

According to U.S. law professor Muneer Ahmad, who had visited Khadr in November and co-authored a subsequent affidavit, the physical and mental abuse of Omar Khadr is "horrific", "immoral" and "illegal"
"We have evidence that one of Canada’s children has been tortured by the United States, Ahmad said.

With his mother weeping in the background and Edney demanding that the federal government fight more vigorously to protect Khadr’s human rights, a fusillade of questions about the Khadr family’s checkered past all but dominated the news conference.

Khadr may be "one of Canada’s children" to Muneer Ahmad. To many Canadians, he’s the scion of a family, three members of who camped out at Osama bin Laden’s terror training camps in Afghanistan.

Ahmed Said Khadr, the family patriarch--once set free from Pakistan by the intercession of Prime Minister Jean Chretien--was a well-known al Qaeda financier who raised four Toronto-born sons in the world of radical Islam.

It was in bin Laden’s terror training camp that Omar Khadr was captured in July, 2002 after allegedly tossing a grenade that killed a U.S. Army medic.

Khadr’s outspoken mother and sister cried no tears for the fallen army medic.

Following Khadr’s capture, his sister said the death of Sgt. 1st Class Christopher J. Speer was no "big deal". His mother, who said she would rather see her sons at al-Qaeda training camps than "be on drugs or having some homosexual relation" in Canada, insulted some Canadians.

Yesterday, Mrs. Khadr let her lawyer do the talking by reading a statement that asked "every Canadian mother and father to help me get justice for my son and bring him home."

Reporters wanted to know why Canadians should care about her son’s plight in consideration of her family’s open disdain for the West and their close ties to terrorism.

Edney responded with an admission that there is no doubt that there is a lack of sympathy toward the Khadr family, but chided inquiring reporters with, "It’s the principle you’re fighting for".

"We need to be very clear," Ahmad, added. "The U.S. did not torture the Khadr family. They took the body of a boy and subjected it to horrific conditions. So how can we forget about that because of a history that the Khadr family has in the public conscience of Canada?"

With evidence that has yet to be proven, Ahmad did not use the word "alleged" when he spoke about the U.S. subjecting Khadr’s body to "horrific" conditions.

Dan McTeague, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has conceded that Ottawa is still concerned that Khadr has been imprisoned for almost three years without being charged with a crime.

Sgt. 1st Class (ret.) Layne Morris, who was injured in the firefight that ended with Khadr’s capture, is skeptical about Khadr’s allegations of torture.

"The best defence is a good offence," he said yesterday, referring to al-Qaeda training manuals that urge members to allege abuse if they are arrested. "He might be youthful-looking, but he is certainly not youthful-acting. You don’t get to Afghanistan in a firefight with U.S. forces on a whim."


Spare your tears for Omar Khadr. Save them for Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, his widow, and his young and fatherless daughters.
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
I'm pretty sure that if you shot those bunch of Terrorists instead of taking them prisoner that they'd whine alot less. Also give less for the left wing media to complain about. Back in the good old days when they had the death penalty and the lash, the world was a better place. Now because of the socialist media all of the criminals are victims of circumstance. IMHO.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
"Dan McTeague, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has conceded that Ottawa is still concerned that Khadr has been imprisoned for almost three years without being charged with a crime."

Why is Canada so concerned about the rights of a known terrorist? How about a little concern for the victims? Or are Canadians too much like the French?
 

don

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
0
Location
saskatchewan
liberty belle - it isn't that ottawa is concerned with omar khadr. i have heard interviews with his family and i wish they weren't in canada; they are just trouble. the concern is that a canadian citizen can be held three years without being brought to trial. i think washington is in a dilemma here about how to treat foreign nationals who have been seized in parts of the world beyond american borders. the process which washington uses may be used against american nationals by some other government in the future. habeas corpus is an old and respected principle of justice which says that a person cannot be held beyond a specified period without being charged and trial must happen in a timely manner. i have no doubt that omar khadr is everything he is accused of so the justice process should just be carried out.
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
Why is Canada so concerned about the rights of a known terrorist

I'm Canadian and the rights of terrorists or criminals of any kind don't concern me at all. What's your point?
 

cowsense

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
0
Location
Central Saskatchewan
I'm Canadian and totally repulsed by the story. We,ve got far too many leftist , dogooders setting immigration policy. It seems socalled human rights take precedence over criminal activities!
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Liberty Belle said:
"Dan McTeague, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has conceded that Ottawa is still concerned that Khadr has been imprisoned for almost three years without being charged with a crime."

Why is Canada so concerned about the rights of a known terrorist? How about a little concern for the victims? Or are Canadians too much like the French?

The average Canadian is just as repulsed by the Khadr family and some Canadian politicians as the average American must be at how SoDamn Insane turned out after the US politicians picked him to be the leader of Iraq.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"even a Christian would like to die for their religion.”

His misgiuded look at Christianinity shows his ignorance, but as a soldier it is my Duty to make sure he dies for his country, My dieing would not help my country one bit of good. so wasting my life is not and will never be part of my Christianity or military duty. ( I am a retired sailor, so at this time I'm only speakink retorically)

As for Bill's comment. about the Politicians installing Saddam; But most should look at the whole picture Saddam was at one time a moderate in the Arab world, institutung education programs and rejecting radical islam., but as in all situations power currupts and absolute power currupts absolutly. Looking back is easy, looking forward requires vision and wisdom.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Anonymous said:
"even a Christian would like to die for their religion.”

His misgiuded look at Christianinity shows his ignorance, but as a soldier it is my Duty to make sure he dies for his country, My dieing would not help my country one bit of good. so wasting my life is not and will never be part of my Christianity or military duty. ( I am a retired sailor, so at this time I'm only speakink retorically)

As for Bill's comment. about the Politicians installing Saddam; But most should look at the whole picture Saddam was at one time a moderate in the Arab world, institutung education programs and rejecting radical islam., but as in all situations power currupts and absolute power currupts absolutly. Looking back is easy, looking forward requires vision and wisdom.


Just as there should be no excuses made for keeping the Khadr family in Canada there should be none made for Reagan and his advisors putting Saddam in power.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Bill said:
Anonymous said:
"even a Christian would like to die for their religion.”

His misgiuded look at Christianinity shows his ignorance, but as a soldier it is my Duty to make sure he dies for his country, My dieing would not help my country one bit of good. so wasting my life is not and will never be part of my Christianity or military duty. ( I am a retired sailor, so at this time I'm only speakink retorically)

As for Bill's comment. about the Politicians installing Saddam; But most should look at the whole picture Saddam was at one time a moderate in the Arab world, institutung education programs and rejecting radical islam., but as in all situations power currupts and absolute power currupts absolutly. Looking back is easy, looking forward requires vision and wisdom.


Just as there should be no excuses made for keeping the Khadr family in Canada there should be none made for Reagan and his advisors putting Saddam in power.

Bill, you want to tell me when Saddam came to power and when Reagan did? :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Reagan Played Decisive Role in Saddam Hussein's Survival in Iran-Iraq War

WASHINGTON - As Americans mourn the passing of president Ronald Reagan, almost forgotten is the decisive part his administration played in the survival of Iraq's president Saddam Hussein through his eight year war with Iran.

US soldiers now fighting the remnants of Saddam's regime can look back to the early 1980s for the start of a relationship that fostered the rise of the largest military in the Middle East, one whose use of chemical weapons set the stage for last year's war.

Reagan, determined to check arch-foe Iran, opened a back door to Iraq through which flowed US intelligence and hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees even as Washington professed neutrality in Baghdad's war with Tehran.

It was complemented by French weaponry and German dual-use technology that experts say wound up in Iraq's chemical and biological warfare programs.

Donald Rumsfeld, then Reagan's special Middle East envoy, is credited with establishing the back channel to Saddam on a secret trip to Baghdad in December 1983.

Washington had plenty of motives to help Saddam stave off an Iranian victory. Not only was the United States still smarting from the 1980 hostage-taking at the US embassy in Tehran, but its embassy and a marine barracks in Beirut had been struck with truck bombings earlier in 1983.

In fact, the United States had begun to tilt in favor Baghdad even before Rumsfeld's arrival in Baghdad.

In February 1982, the State Department dropped Baghdad from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, clearing the way for aid and trade.

A month later, Reagan ordered a review of US policy in the Middle East which resulted in a marked shift in favor of Iraq over the next year.

"Soon thereafter, Washington began passing high-value military intelligence to Iraq to help it fight the war, including information from US satellites that helped fix key flaws in the fortifications protecting al-Basrah that proved important in Iran's defeat in the next month," wrote Kenneth Pollack in his recently published book "The Threatening Storm."

Economic aid poured into Iraq in the form of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of loan guarantees to buy US agricultural products, indirectly aiding the war effort.

Sales of UH-1H helicopters and Hughes MD-500 Defender helicopters were approved by Washington. Though sold as civilian aircraft, nobody objected when they were quickly converted for military use.

A May 9, 1984 memo unearthed by the National Security Archive, a Washington research organization, noted that US policy for the sale of dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program also was reviewed.

The memo said its "preliminary results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities."

By March 1985, the United States was issuing Baghdad export permits for high tech equipment crucial for its weapons of mass destruction programs, according to Pollack.

US allies also were active in Iraq.

"By 1982, Iraq accounted for 40 percent of French arms exports," wrote Pollack. "Paris sold Baghdad a wide range of weapons, including armored vehicles, air defense radars, surface-to-air missiles, Mirage fighters, and Exocet anti-ship missiles."

"German firms also rushed in without much compunction, not only selling Iraq large numbers of trucks and automobiles but also building vast complexes for Iraq's chemical warfare, biological warfare, and ballistic missile programs," he wrote.

The aid came despite clear evidence as early as mid-1983 that Iraq was using chemical weapons on Iranian forces.

Washington said nothing publicly, but noted "almost daily" Iraqi use of chemical weapons in internal reports.

"We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons," a November 1, 1983 State Department memo said. "We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from western firms, including possibly a US foreign subsidiary."

It said "our best present chance of influencing cessation of CW use may be in the context of informing Iraq of these measures."

Washington did not publicly denounce Iraqi use of chemical weapons until March, 1984 after it was documented in a UN study.

The Reagan administration opened full diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November, 1984. Iraqi chemical attacks continued not only on Iranian forces but also on Kurdish civilians, notably at Hallabja in 1987.

For its support, Pollack wrote, Washington got a bulwhark against Iran, cheap oil and Iraqi support for peace negotiations with Israel.

But when the Iran-Iraq war ended, Baghdad was left with huge debts and a large and menacing military looking for easy prey.

© Copyright 2004, AFP
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
But when the Iran-Iraq war ended, Baghdad was left with huge debts and a large and menacing military looking for easy prey.

Up until then you had me convinced. that all the problems of Iraq could be blamed on gool ole USA, (not really).

We also sided with Russia during WW2 Does that mean we started communism NOPE. Blaming the us for saddams later insane behaviour is not a good arguement and quite simply flawed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
But when the Iran-Iraq war ended, Baghdad was left with huge debts and a large and menacing military looking for easy prey.

Up until then you had me convinced. that all the problems of Iraq could be blamed on gool ole USA, (not really).

We also sided with Russia during WW2 Does that mean we started communism NOPE. Blaming the us for saddams later insane behaviour is not a good arguement and quite simply flawed.


I don't think Bill was trying to blame anyone just pointing out a bit of history that a lot of us don't seem to want to remember. Do a google with Reagan and Hussein in the same line and look at all the smiling pictures of Donald Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands. Sickening isn't it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
look at all the smiling pictures of Donald Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands. Sickening isn't it?

No more so then Clinton Hugging Arafat or Mrs. Clinton Kissing Mrs. Arafat

did you catch the one where Clinton was shaking Castro's grimy hand?

Politicians meet for talks everday, Rumsfield spearheaded talks to get the Iraqi goverment to oppose Iran., and recognise Israel as a nation. For him not to shake his slimy bloodsoaked hand would have scuttled the talks before they had a chance to take place.

I could post thousands of photos with politicians shaking hands with thousands of scummy other country leaders, it doesn't mean we support thier goverment or leadership. it just means we are talking to them in an effort to get them to make more reasonable deceisions that the world can live with.

My comparison to Russia's communism and Saddams dictatorship being similarly our fault, ignored time lines just as the other posts blaming US for Saddam's fanatical leadership was to make a point. That was part of the point we niether support communism or dictatorships but the our need of them at a time of War against a worse enemy forced US to take them on as allies, just as France and Germany sided with Iraq in supporting it's war effort against Iran.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Just goes to show that to some people almost anything can be justified.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Well Guest I see in your book it's okey to hug and be warm and cordial with a know terrorist (Arafat), and a state sponsor of terrorsits. and to warmly greet a person who believe a whole race of people should be exterminated (Mr and Mrs. arafat). and the warm greeting given to Castro a Leader who would destroy his own people and has stood in defiance against our ideals for over 50 years.

Yet meeting with Saddam was wrong.? I guess your right, for you any thing can be justified.

Maybe next time a leader you support meets to negotiate with a leader that you believe is violating Human rights you can come back and chastise him, because I see no outrage at Hillery or Bill meeting with these nasty despots. You are what most people would call a hypocrite. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Funny how defensive some get when their past is revisited. All I did was bring up a point that many Americans fail to admit/remember.
 

Latest posts

Top