[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=29942" target="_blank">Canada's inaction shameful</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/17-business" target="_blank">Business</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=tritium" target="_blank">tritium</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-02-06 05:49:52
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[RUEZ]

Screw him. Let him burn.

[hurley_108]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Screw him. Let him burn.

Do you believe that these new claims:

$1:

Now we have new revelations, based on documentation released by mistake: Young Khadr may not even be guilty of whatever the Bush administration has arbitrarily declared to be a crime. And he was shot in the back at the time of his capture, which tends to undermine, if not demolish, the U.S. position that he was shot in self-defence.

Are false?

[martin14]

yeah sure he was going to just stand there and wait to be taken

away after throwing the grenade..

self defense.. he had one grenade, any reason to beleive he didn't have another one stashed away somewhere ??

so what if he was shot in the back running away..

i hope that shit burns...

[dino_bobba_renno]

It's the Star, what did you expect. If the conservatives where pushing to have him freed the Star would be all over them for that as well.

[RUEZ]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Screw him. Let him burn.

Do you believe that these new claims:

$1:

Now we have new revelations, based on documentation released by mistake: Young Khadr may not even be guilty of whatever the Bush administration has arbitrarily declared to be a crime. And he was shot in the back at the time of his capture, which tends to undermine, if not demolish, the U.S. position that he was shot in self-defence.

Are false?

Yes.

[kenmore]

this kid... is a terrrorist.. he should be tried and convicted and sent packing...no pun intended....

[sasquatch2]

$1:

Young Khadr may not even be guilty of whatever the Bush administration has arbitrarily declared to be a crime. And he was shot in the back at the time of his capture, which tends to undermine, if not demolish, the U.S. position that he was shot in self-defence.

Irrelevant as anyone ever involved in battle/a firefight will testify.

This sort of woolly headed mentality devised the SOP peace-keeping ROE....

Advancing down a street, with alocal acting as interpreter. A shor fired from a building ahead hits and kills the interpreter.

You return fire---you have committed a war-crime because you cannot establish if non-combatants are vulnerable to your fire----recommended action--withdraw--RUN AWAY---

You are in the street and an agitated civilian brandishing a grenade----you shoot him you have committed a war crime (murder) because until he throws the grenade he represents no immediate threat.

He throwws the grenade you have committed a war-crime (murder) because he no longer is a threat because he is unarmed---the grenade is the threat....----recommended action--withdraw--RUN AWAY--

As an illegal combatant (armed, hostile and ununiformed or displaying ID) he is not subject to the Geneva Accords and does not deserve POW statis----is subject to summary execution.....

[martin14]

$1:

This sort of woolly headed mentality devised the SOP peace-keeping ROE....

exactly.. it is this kind of PC bullshit that really worrys me..

we may still lose Afghanistan because of this type of idiocy.

[BartSimpson]

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

$1:

Young Khadr may not even be guilty of whatever the Bush administration has arbitrarily declared to be a crime. And he was shot in the back at the time of his capture, which tends to undermine, if not demolish, the U.S. position that he was shot in self-defence.

Irrelevant as anyone ever involved in battle/a firefight will testify.

This sort of woolly headed mentality devised the SOP peace-keeping ROE....

Advancing down a street, with alocal acting as interpreter. A shor fired from a building ahead hits and kills the interpreter.

You return fire---you have committed a war-crime because you cannot establish if non-combatants are vulnerable to your fire----recommended action--withdraw--RUN AWAY---

You are in the street and an agitated civilian brandishing a grenade----you shoot him you have committed a war crime (murder) because until he throws the grenade he represents no immediate threat.

He throwws the grenade you have committed a war-crime (murder) because he no longer is a threat because he is unarmed---the grenade is the threat....----recommended action--withdraw--RUN AWAY--

As an illegal combatant (armed, hostile and ununiformed or displaying ID) he is not subject to the Geneva Accords and does not deserve POW statis----is subject to summary execution.....

I once had someone on here ask me what I'd do were I in a situation where I had a UN observer with me and I was fired at by a bunch of teenagers. Rationally, you know you're going to be in trouble when the UN toadie reports that you shot a bunch of teenagers - never mind that they were shooting at you.

So I'd shoot the UN observer first and then shoot the teenagers.

My recommendation to Canadians working with these ridiculous ROE is to buy a local firearm (cheap enough over there even on CF pay) and use that to defend yourself when needed.

If anyone asks you can truthfully answer: "I never fired my rifle, sir."

[martin14]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

sasquatch2 sasquatch2:

$1:

Young Khadr may not even be guilty of whatever the Bush administration has arbitrarily declared to be a crime. And he was shot in the back at the time of his capture, which tends to undermine, if not demolish, the U.S. position that he was shot in self-defence.

Irrelevant as anyone ever involved in battle/a firefight will testify.

This sort of woolly headed mentality devised the SOP peace-keeping ROE....

Advancing down a street, with alocal acting as interpreter. A shor fired from a building ahead hits and kills the interpreter.

You return fire---you have committed a war-crime because you cannot establish if non-combatants are vulnerable to your fire----recommended action--withdraw--RUN AWAY---

You are in the street and an agitated civilian brandishing a grenade----you shoot him you have committed a war crime (murder) because until he throws the grenade he represents no immediate threat.

He throwws the grenade you have committed a war-crime (murder) because he no longer is a threat because he is unarmed---the grenade is the threat....----recommended action--withdraw--RUN AWAY--

As an illegal combatant (armed, hostile and ununiformed or displaying ID) he is not subject to the Geneva Accords and does not deserve POW statis----is subject to summary execution.....

I once had someone on here ask me what I'd do were I in a situation where I had a UN observer with me and I was fired at by a bunch of teenagers. Rationally, you know you're going to be in trouble when the UN toadie reports that you shot a bunch of teenagers - never mind that they were shooting at you.

So I'd shoot the UN observer first and then shoot the teenagers.

My recommendation to Canadians working with these ridiculous ROE is to buy a local firearm (cheap enough over there even on CF pay) and use that to defend yourself when needed.

If anyone asks you can truthfully answer: "I never fired my rifle, sir."

Kill 'em all.. let God sort it out ...

[sasquatch2]

BartSimpson

$1:

My recommendation to Canadians working with these ridiculous ROE is to buy a local firearm (cheap enough over there even on CF pay) and use that to defend yourself when needed.

If anyone asks you can truthfully answer: "I never fired my rifle, sir."

Not a practical idea and you Bart of all know that.

1. Possessing that contraband weapon is an offense under the code....you could never get an AK past inspection....

2. Use of enemy ordinance is not wise---it usually invited serious friendly fire....especially after dark. This is why arming the ANA with used canadian C7s will eliminate a lot of potential friendly fire problems.

I approve the idea in principle but in practice it is unworkable. Better to used a captured weapon on "the UN toadie", and attending journalists, immediately after the incident.

[mtbr]

Fuck him he can thank his old man.


http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_pape ... ?id=288174

[stokes]

What he did was wrong....there is no disputing that, but this kid was 14 when he was first captured...well.. according to the young Offenders Act this lad would only get 3 years for murder so why is it that 7 years later he is still in jail without a trial.


No matter how you feel about terrorists, due process is in the Charter of Rights, as soon as he was taken into custody and held...he was entitled to at least a trial...even a false one


It would have been better that he was shot and left for dead instead of wasting Medicine and health care on his ass....at least 7 years later no one would be asking questions.

[kenmore]

the point is they are training kids as young as 8 to be terrorists.. he is who he is ... end of story .. his age in this respect is irrelivant... we tend to think in terms of our culture.. and that gets us into trouble...
you have to think like the enemy... and that my friends is what he is..