Mirage Escorts

Omar Khadre

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,743
80
48
These are a few samples of a series of photos taken on Aug 14, 1998 at Ghazi Stadium in Kabul. The stadium was used by the Taliban for public executions, and on that particular day a convicted murdered was executed by a family member of the man he killed. Also that day was the amputation of the limbs of two convicted robbers. The two men were anesthetized, had their hands & feet cut off by doctors, and the severed limbs where put on display on site for all to see. The Khadr family was known to be in A-stan at this time, living between OBL's compound in Jalalabad and their own place in Kabul. They were considered honoured guests of an honoured guest (in 1998 relations between the Taliban & AQ were pretty cozy, but that'll change in a few years).
At the time of the photos, he was identified only as "a Taliban", but its been confirmed by experts to be him and to be authentic.

Parading around with severed limbs doesn't prove or disprove the case he just pled to......maybe Omar was just running around with those appendages as props for some pranks - "Hey, Fazel, those opium bags look heavy....can I give you a hand? Ha ha ha", or "Lets have a big hand for the man who made tonights show possible". That sort of thing.
One last bit regarding the pictures:

Take a closer look at the second picture, taken from in front rather the beside him, with all the other guys in the background. What do you see?
Well, as someone already pointed out, you don't see the guy with the gun pointed at Omar forcing him to do this.....but thats because there's no such guy. Look at Omars head and compare what's on his head versus all the other guys in the shot.
That style turban, at that time (1998) has alot of significance. The dark "lungee" style turban, with the one end hanging loose over the shoulder, was the popular style worn by many Taliban......theres not really 1 style of turban that defines the Taliban, and a popular misconception is that they exclusively wear black turbans, but they actually have several different styles of turban worn for differeent functions or occasions. But this particular style at the time indicates your Taliban affiliation, hence experts labelling him as a "Taliban" without knowing exactly how he is. Theres more significance to the turban. As already pointed out, Omar would have been just shy of his 12th birthday at the time this picture was taken. Taliban rules then were that boys under 15 were not required to wear a turban, but to wear the turban for a boy this young indicated.....you guessed it, an affiliation with the Taliban!!! And also the style of turban is that generally favoured by Pashtuns, but Omar was Egyptian/Palestinian (some people claim he's Canadian, but he was only born there). Wearing a kaffiyeh (what Yassir Arafat usuallly wore) would be more in line with his Palestinian heritage (as would a takiyeh, the little skullcap, which if usually worn by boys of his age), or an Egyptian-style turban, which is usually quite smaller. Covering the head has lots of significance in Islam, and hence the nature of the headcovering can indicate lots about the wearer. The nature of the turban on a boy so young indicated to the photographer that he was someone of importance, hence the pictures.......that plus you just dont see a 12 year old boy with 6 hands and feet walking around everyday!!!


 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,947
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Are you saying he wore a Taliban uniform? Does that not imply that (a) they have an identifiable uniform, and (b) he was wearing it?
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,074
1
0
One last bit regarding the pictures:

Take a closer look at the second picture, taken from in front rather the beside him, with all the other guys in the background. What do you see?
Well, as someone already pointed out, you don't see the guy with the gun pointed at Omar forcing him to do this.....but thats because there's no such guy. Look at Omars head and compare what's on his head versus all the other guys in the shot.
That style turban, at that time (1998) has alot of significance. The dark "lungee" style turban, with the one end hanging loose over the shoulder, was the popular style worn by many Taliban......theres not really 1 style of turban that defines the Taliban, and a popular misconception is that they exclusively wear black turbans, but they actually have several different styles of turban worn for differeent functions or occasions. But this particular style at the time indicates your Taliban affiliation, hence experts labelling him as a "Taliban" without knowing exactly how he is. Theres more significance to the turban. As already pointed out, Omar would have been just shy of his 12th birthday at the time this picture was taken. Taliban rules then were that boys under 15 were not required to wear a turban, but to wear the turban for a boy this young indicated.....you guessed it, an affiliation with the Taliban!!! And also the style of turban is that generally favoured by Pashtuns, but Omar was Egyptian/Palestinian (some people claim he's Canadian, but he was only born there). Wearing a kaffiyeh (what Yassir Arafat usuallly wore) would be more in line with his Palestinian heritage (as would a takiyeh, the little skullcap, which if usually worn by boys of his age), or an Egyptian-style turban, which is usually quite smaller. Covering the head has lots of significance in Islam, and hence the nature of the headcovering can indicate lots about the wearer. The nature of the turban on a boy so young indicated to the photographer that he was someone of importance, hence the pictures.......that plus you just dont see a 12 year old boy with 6 hands and feet walking around everyday!!!


Most of your observations are quite true, but you seem to take a lot space on the headgear. My comments were meant to be a guideline not a steadfast rule. From personal experience, it's not unheard of for people to change headgear such as toques, balaclava, berets, just to cause difficulty in identification difficult. You almost admire resourcefulness like that.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,743
80
48
Not saying that........I know where you're trying to go with this "identifiable uniform", and its not necessarily the case. Persue it if you wish, but it would be an incredbile stretch.....not that that's ever stopped you before.

The dark "lungee" style turban......was the popular style worn by many Taliban......theres not really 1 style of turban that defines the Taliban

Saying that he was wearing a turban, not a uniform. They wear their regular clothes, not any recognizeable uniform. The same style clothes that civilians wear, which is generally the perhan tunban for men. The turban has significance, and that significance was recognized by the photographer. If you have the time to analyze the context of the turban, such as the time & place & whose wearing it & whats he doing & it MIGHT be a good indicator that the wearer is Taliban. In the context of the series of photographs, of which only 3 have been reposted here by me now, everything pointed to his Taliban affiliation. Even if they did all wear the same style & colour of turban, that is not a uniform, it is headgear. Would it be recognizeable from a distance, or distinguisable from a Sihks turban, for example. The best hint that the guy under the turban is Taliban, in that case, in the field, would be that he's likely already tried to kill you.

Now, before you go all Fuji-esque and try to argue that its all circumstantial & it doesn't prove that he's a Taliban, and etc etc etc, look at the context of the pictures. Experts have analyzed those pictures in depth and have determined its a Taliban, and after he rose to notoriety from 2002 someone reviewed the pictures and determined it was him. Argue against it all you want, but you'd be wrong.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,743
80
48
Most of your observations are quite true, but you seem to take a lot space on the headgear. My comments were meant to be a guideline not a steadfast rule. From personal experience, it's not unheard of for people to change headgear such as toques, balaclava, berets, just to cause difficulty in identification difficult. You almost admire resourcefulness like that.
Its true, I do take up alot of space........when I was a little kid, teachers felt I could be an astronaut, because they all said I only took up space in the classroom!!!!
And your right about things being guidelines rather than absolute rules as well.
Let's think of it this way.........a runway model in Paris wears a maroon beret means a much different thing from a dude in Petawawa wearing maroon. Now, a dude in Petawawa wearing maroon who didn't earn the maroon would probably regret it. But if theres a series of pictures of some dude in the right headgear in the right environment under the nose of others entitled to wear that headgear, and he doesnt look like he under duress or fearful, experts on the environment and the maroon beret could make a very accurate statement as to that dudes affiliations. And that what experts did with these pictures. The pictures dont prove Omar's guilt or innocence in SFC Speers death, nor does it prove that the Taliban are lawful combatants because they wear a uniform. But it does very very VERY strongly show that in 1998 at nearly 12 years old, Omar wasn't some regular kid in Kabul but he had some affiliation with the Taliban. He was a favoured son of an honoured guest of an honoured guest of the Taliban.

PS.....that it for tonight and for a few days. I dont have the time most of you guys do so I apologize if I jump in & out of threads too late and muddy the stream.

PPS.....I just thought of this and felt compelled to add it, regarding Fuji's idea on headgear as being a uniform. If you had a group of Shriners, would their headgear alone identify them as shriners? They can change the headgear as they see fit depending on what they're doing, and a fellow from Morocco may wear the same headgear without having any affiliation with the Shriners. There would have to be something more than just wearing the same headgear occasionally to identifying them as shriners, some other recognizeable feature. Because I may not be able to identify you clearly as a shriner solely on the headgear, even though I never forget a fez!!!!
Hey, you've been great. Thanks for coming out & drive safely!!!!
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,947
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Not saying that........I know where you're trying to go with this "identifiable uniform", and its not necessarily the case. Persue it if you wish, but it would be an incredbile stretch.....not that that's ever stopped you before.
Ok so let's go back to saying what he was wearing meant nothing, since if it did clearly identify him as Taliban then I think there are some other debates you've just lost.

Now, before you go all Fuji-esque and try to argue that its all circumstantial & it doesn't prove that he's a Taliban, and etc etc etc, look at the context of the pictures. Experts have analyzed those pictures in depth and have determined its a Taliban, and after he rose to notoriety from 2002 someone reviewed the pictures and determined it was him. Argue against it all you want, but you'd be wrong.
Seems to me that he was on the equivalent of a "school trip" at the behest of his parents, getting some sort of tour of the Taliban justice system.

I'm not sure that any conclusions can be drawn from that, other than he had a fucked up dad, which we already knew.

So nothing new here?
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,074
1
0
PPS.....I just thought of this and felt compelled to add it, regarding Fuji's idea on headgear as being a uniform. If you had a group of Shriners, would their headgear alone identify them as shriners? They can change the headgear as they see fit depending on what they're doing, and a fellow from Morocco may wear the same headgear without having any affiliation with the Shriners. There would have to be something more than just wearing the same headgear occasionally to identifying them as shriners, some other recognizeable feature. Because I may not be able to identify you clearly as a shriner solely on the headgear, even though I never forget a fez!!!!
Hey, you've been great. Thanks for coming out & drive safely!!!!
More than the uniform it's the 3 pak of RPGs or the the RPD that gives the Taliban away on market day, just sayin'.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,744
3
0
Ok so let's go back to saying what he was wearing meant nothing, since if it did clearly identify him as Taliban then I think there are some other debates you've just lost.
There are days when I believe the sole thing you do is obsess about Omar Khadr.

Once again you are attempting to stretch things. Just because someone wears a maroon beret does not mean that alone is enough to make it a distinctive uniform under the Geneva Conventions.

Now in some circumstances such as seeing someone in CANPAT or ACU in Petawawa or Fayetteville wearing one, someone in Russian Army Order of Battle could make certain assumptions, however, they wouldn’t be ok saying it’s ok to shoot someone merely because they are wearing a maroon beret.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,947
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Once again you are attempting to stretch things. Just because someone wears a maroon beret does not mean that alone is enough to make it a distinctive uniform under the Geneva Conventions.
In fact it would. The GC does not require a full uniform. Just enough markings to identify someone at a distance. A maroon beret would absolutely cut it, as would some sort of distinctive turban.

You really ought to learn more about it. The GC absolutely recognizes militias and is fully cognizant of the fact that they generally don't own uniforms. It merely requires that they try and identify themselves in some way--a distinctive hat would certainly do it.
 

big.guy_13

Just show me the boobs.
Feb 4, 2010
631
0
0
Just read a report Mr Kahdre has a deal in place to plead guilty to all charges and recieve a 9 year sentance, 7 in Canada
Someone has likely already commented on this, but his name is "Khadr."

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but you lose credibility when you spell names wrong.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,744
3
0
In fact it would. The GC does not require a full uniform. Just enough markings to identify someone at a distance. A maroon beret would absolutely cut it, as would some sort of distinctive turban.
It is true that the Convention does not require a full uniform, however what it does require is a matter of interpretation.

One item of clothing that was in any way different from ordinary clothing probably would not "cut it". Further, only if no one who was not fighting wore maroon berets or turban's of which the lungi/paloo was of a particular pattern could you even begin to make your particular argument.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,947
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
It is true that the Convention does not require a full uniform, however what it does require is a matter of interpretation.

One item of clothing that was in any way different from ordinary clothing probably would not "cut it". Further, only if no one who was not fighting wore maroon berets or turban's of which the lungi/paloo was of a particular pattern could you even begin to make your particular argument.
I'm not keen to argue this point, just going to assert you cannot have it both ways: If the clothing is distinctive enough to identify him as a member of the Taliban from a photograph then it's distinctive enough for the GC.

More than likely Seth is overstating the case and lots of people wore that get-up, without being Taliban. Maybe some of the people who wore it were merely Taliban sympathizers, for example, or maybe it was worn by people who had nothing whatever to do with the Taliban.

If you want to argue that it was a hallmark of the Taliban that identified the wearer as a member then it's going to cut it under the GC too. Pick whichever interpretation you like, but not both.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,744
3
0
I'm not keen to argue this point, just going to assert you cannot have it both ways: If the clothing is distinctive enough to identify him as a member of the Taliban from a photograph then it's distinctive enough for the GC.
That I can tell one regiment from another in a photograh or from standing a few meters away, does not mean that were we talking of non-combatants and combatants that such minor distinctions would be enough to satisfy the Convention.
 

seth gecko

Well-known member
Nov 2, 2003
3,743
80
48
SURPRISE....we're back early!
No, more than likely Fuji doesn't understand abstract concepts like the passage of time.
In 1998 that was a popular style of turban worn by many Taliban. 1998....pay attention because 1998 is important.
In the context of those series of pictures, taken in 1998 (thats 12 years ago, for the chronologically-challenged) at that stadium for that execution/amputation, that turban is what was worn by Taliban. Now, as time passes and it now 2002, the Taliban aren't wearing identifying turbans.......what happened between 1998 when they ran the country and 2002 to cause them to not want to be easily identified???? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Hint: something big happened in Sept 2001 that effected a speedy power-shift in A-stan by early 2002.
In 1998, when maybe a half-dozen people in all of Canada (and those would mostly all be Liberal Party-people) might recognize the name Khadr, because of Ahmed, not Omar, the picture was captioned as "a Taliban fighter with the amputated limbs of the victims paraded through the streets of Kabul".

The turban was an identifying feature of Taliban in 1998, and probably through 1999, 2000, most of 2001 and maybe even a tiny bit of 2002. As soon as the fighting started, the black turbans disappeared. They wear no easily identifiable uniforms or insignia, or fly colours or hoist banners. They're not idiots. Not like some people on this board I could mention by name, but won't as I don't want to embarrass Fuj.......er, the guy, yeah, thats it, I dont want to embarrass the guy.

Here's an article from Nov 2009. Please read it carefully.........
Taliban commander: We're fighting for 'independence'

By Petra Cahill, msnbc.com editor, msnbc.com news editor
By NBC News' Mujeeb Ahmad
SPIN BOLDAK, Afghanistan – Even as the Pakistani army steps up its offensive against the Taliban in Pakistan's northern tribal region, there are increasing concerns about militants from Afghanistan seeking safe haven in a different part of the country: Quetta, the capital of Pakistan's southwest Baluchistan Province.
American military and intelligence officials believe that the Taliban ruling council, or shura, which commands and controls jihad efforts in Afghanistan, have abandoned their historic base in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar and crossed the border into Quetta.

In Pakistan, the issue is raised every day in the press and on the streets: Have the Afghan Taliban moved their power base from Kandahar and set-up shop in Quetta? Quetta is my home – my family and friends live there – so I had a personal, as well as professional stake in finding out what's been going on.
Some colleagues urged me to talk to Mullah Manan, a commander of 70 foot soldiers in Helmand province in Afghanistan, to try to get some answers.
'Welcome to Spin Boldak'
It took weeks to arrange an interview with Manan, but finally the meeting point was set for Spin Boldak, a town in Afghanistan, near Kandahar.
Four of Manan's men were waiting for me on motorbikes when I arrived by car in Spin Boldak. We exchanged greetings and then they blindfolded me and helped me onto the back of one of the bikes.
We drove for what seemed to be more than an hour, careening at breakneck speeds along narrow mountain roads. The driver zigzagged around rocks and potholes while the others seemed to follow closely behind. When we finally skidded to a halt, my blindfold was lifted.
I was led into a room in a modest house built of mud and sun-dried bricks and told to sit on the floor and wait. The room was mostly dark; there were no windows and no furniture, and the air smelled of damp wet mud. A dark green door of rotting wood was left ajar to let in some light.
After about 15 minutes, tea was served. Shortly afterwards, a young man with a thick, black beard entered, flanked by two others. "Welcome to Spin Boldak. I am Commander Mullah Manan," he said, "the second in command to Mullah Abdul Hakeem, the commander of Helmand Province."

He wrapped a white turban around his head as he began to speak. "I just returned from a council meeting in Kandahar," he said. Manan laughed as he explained that the U.S. and NATO forces think they can identify the Taliban by their black turbans – but they don't understand that they only wear black at certain times. He seemed to enjoy pointing out that the Taliban are Afghans and dress like Afghans, which he said means they wear "baggy trousers, long loose-fitting shirts and white turbans."
I was anxious to ask him about the rumors that the Taliban's shura, or ruling council, had moved to Quetta. "This is Western propaganda," he said. "The only true Taliban shura is the one led by Mullah Omar. It has 29 members and is spread around Afghanistan – some of the members are even holding key government posts. Their identities are known only among the shura members," Manan explained.
He was referring to Mullah Muhammad Omar, a reclusive, one-eyed cleric who is regarded by all the Taliban as their supreme commander and the founder of the movement.
"Where is Mullah Omar?" I asked.
"Very few know his whereabouts, but I am sure he is still in Afghanistan," Manan replied. "Mullah Omar's orders are written down and then given to the shura members. They, in turn, pass them on to a chosen eight or nine others. Eventually everyone receives the orders. No one uses any form of telecommunications or electronic devices," Manan added with a smile.
Peace proposal?
I pressed him with more questions about Taliban activities in Quetta, particularly because I'm worried about the threat of drones destroying my city and killing my family and friends.
"We are not safe in Quetta," Manan answered, referring to the Taliban forces. "These days, the Pakistani security forces are looking for us and it is no longer safe to even cross the border to visit friends. Besides," Manan added, "we control almost 80 percent of Afghanistan, why should we hide in Pakistan?"
Manan lectured me on the Taliban's war against American and NATO troops, calling them occupiers who must be expelled from his country. He said he had personally killed 15 foreign troops.
"We don't distinguish between American, British or other Europeans," he said. "They are all white people; they are all occupiers. We can never accept them and we will fight until we liberate our country."
"Will you guarantee to the Americans that if they leave [Afghanistan] there won't be another 9/11 attack against them?" I asked.
"Look, we want an Islamic state with Islamic laws," Manan replied quietly, while his eyes seemed to bore right through me. "If the Americans leave, then we will not concern ourselves with them any longer."
Manan paused and then asked: "Do you understand what I am telling you?" And then he put it this way. "That means we will never again allow our country to be used in the same way as it was used against America in the past."
"That sounds like a peace proposal," I said.
Manan laughed. He was quick to point out that this was the Taliban viewpoint, but since no one recognizes them as an international force, no one is asking them to abide by any international obligations.
"Look," he explained, "the Americans are offering huge sums of money to anyone who will lay down arms and join them. We are fighting for our independence and for our country. We believe in our cause and the Americans should stop trying to bribe us."
"Make no mistake," Manan added, "some of us will take their money, but none of us will ever give up our fight."
Mujeeb Ahmed is on the Executive Council of the Balouchistan Journalists Federation and is a reporter for AAj TV, the second leading news network in Pakistan. He is based in Quetta and is a contributor to NBC News in Pakistan.
If there's any other questions anyone would like answered, ask them now. Or better yet, be at the Sundowner in Niagara Falls around 11:00 tonight, we'll be there! If you can figure out who I am, I'll buy that man a drink or two.
 
Last edited:

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,947
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
That I can tell one regiment from another in a photograh or from standing a few meters away, does not mean that were we talking of non-combatants and combatants that such minor distinctions would be enough to satisfy the Convention.
That's not required for the GC, though. So long as the combatants distinguish themselves, say through some fancy turban such as Seth implies, they're entitled to protection. Either the Turban identifies you as a Taliban, and entitles you to GC protection, or it does not identify you as a Taliban, and the photograph is meaningless.

Pick one.

In any case the claim that he is actually Taliban rather than Al Qaeda is very, very significant no matter how you slice or dice it. The Taliban plainly are recognized as a power and if the only justification for denying them GC protection is an issue around uniforms--well that's basically a technicality and certainly violates the spirit of the convention.

I really don't have any respect for a country that looks for loopholes in the law in order to abuse people, and that seems to be what you are saying that the US has done here: Searched high and low for a loophole in international humanitarian law, so that they could violate the spirit of the law.

Disgusting.
 

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,766
0
0
The Taliban plainly are recognized as a power and if the only justification for denying them GC protection is an issue around uniforms--
If the Taliban is entitled to GC protection, are they also obligated to offer GC protection as well?

Getting back to Omar Khadr. Since he is a Canadian citizen (by birth), I hold him to a higher standard and what he did in Afghanistan is criminal.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,947
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
If the Taliban is entitled to GC protection, are they also obligated to offer GC protection as well?
Legally obligated? It would depend on whether they ever signed the convention.

Morally obligated? Yes.

Do they? Well that's why they're the bad guys, and we're the good guys. Why would I support the Canadian Forces if that were to change?

Getting back to Omar Khadr. Since he is a Canadian citizen (by birth), I hold him to a higher standard and what he did in Afghanistan is criminal.
I've never objected to having him face a fair trial.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts