More like I have never, ever before heard him described as a Taliban. I'd previously heard it said that his family was loosely associated with Al Qaeda. If in fact he is actually a Taliban fighter that enormously bolsters the claim that he should be held as a POW rather than charged with a crime.
Omar Khadre
- Thread starter landscaper
- Start date
Well, it nice that you finally start admitting that you have never heard much about the background to this story.....that explains why you are compelled to make stuff up as you go along.More like I have never, ever before heard him described as a Taliban. I'd previously heard it said that his family was loosely associated with Al Qaeda. If in fact he is actually a Taliban fighter that enormously bolsters the claim that he should be held as a POW rather than charged with a crime.
Re-read the original post with a dictionary handy. He was the favoured son of an honoured guest (Ahmed Khadr) of an honoured guest (Osama Bin Laden) of the Taliban. His wearing the turban is significant because it shows with affiliation with the Taliban. The photograper recognized the significance of a young boy wearing the turban & thats why the pictures even exist in the first place, but at the time (1998) they did not know exactly who he was, only that he was someone important......Fuji, if it walks like a duck and flies like a duck and quacks like a duck, you wouldn't be totally wrong to call it a duck. Only after the firefight & his capture did his identity become known, and then some analyst somewhere recognized that it was him in the picture......BTW, apparently the pictures were suppressed as evidence by the defence.
I knew you'd try to make some ridiculous stretch with this, and you're still twisting and flapping after already being shown the error of your ways re the Taliban having a uniform.
Seriously, Fuji, why are you so insecure that you need to make everything a debate and you refuse to admit to dont know something that only about .00001% of the population might know???? I have no interest in wasting time correcting your mistakes, so if you don't know, just ask. I've been pretty good in sharing information - not opinion, information, with this board.
So today you've learned that the Taliban doesn't wear any distinctive & recognizeable insignias, and that they dress "like Afghans" (I beleive that was the quote from the interview)......in other words, they dress like civilians.
Everyone have a good night!
Now we're supposed to believe that Osama bin Laden was Taliban? Or that his guests were Taliban?He was the favoured son of an honoured guest (Ahmed Khadr) of an honoured guest (Osama Bin Laden) of the Taliban.
Give it a rest.
Which would be a different status in Afghanistan than, say, Osama bin Ladin. It would mean he was essentially a part of the armed forces of Afghanistan, unlike any of the Al Qaeda operatives there.His wearing the turban is significant because it shows with affiliation with the Taliban.
This is REALLY what you're claiming????
Fuji do you bother to read before you post?Now we're supposed to believe that Osama bin Laden was Taliban? Or that his guests were Taliban?He was the favoured son of an honoured guest (Ahmed Khadr) of an honoured guest (Osama Bin Laden) of the Taliban.
Give it a rest.
Yet again The Third Geneva Convention Part One, Article 4 (b) states: "provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distanceThat's not required for the GC, though. So long as the combatants distinguish themselves, say through some fancy turban.
Which as you will recall is what I previously posted. A turban doesn't cut it.
I don't know whether to laugh at the idiocy you're displaying, or to cry over the idiocy your displaying.Now we're supposed to believe that Osama bin Laden was Taliban? Or that his guests were Taliban?
Give it a rest.
Which would be a different status in Afghanistan than, say, Osama bin Ladin. It would mean he was essentially a part of the armed forces of Afghanistan, unlike any of the Al Qaeda operatives there.
This is REALLY what you're claiming????
You can't actually be as clueless as you're continually setting yourself up to be.
If anyone OTHER than Fuji has questions regarding my past few comments since posting the pictures, I'd be glad to answer any of those.
But Fuji, your repeated display of either ignorance or provocation doesnt warrant any further discussion. Feel free to consider my ignoring you as "winning the debate", since that's what drives you. You are either incapable or unwilling to intelligently process information that counters your opinions.
According to the CSRT, they are all the same, "enemy combatants".More like I have never, ever before heard him described as a Taliban. I'd previously heard it said that his family was loosely associated with Al Qaeda. If in fact he is actually a Taliban fighter that enormously bolsters the claim that he should be held as a POW rather than charged with a crime.
Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."
Why not, it seems to be a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. It's at least as distinctive and recognizable from a distance as a US camo uniform.Yet again The Third Geneva Convention Part One, Article 4 (b) states: "provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
Which as you will recall is what I previously posted. A turban doesn't cut it.
Yup I will. I'll chalk this one up to your failure to comprehend. You're asserting that he was a Taliban fighter. That strengthens the case that he should be treated as a POW.Feel free to consider my ignoring you as "winning the debate", since that's what drives you.
It's simple, but you've already decided what you believe in advance, and so obvious facts like this aren't registering for you.
It is immoral to fight a war and assert that the enemy soldiers arrayed against you are criminal for no other reason than they are fighting a war.According to the CSRT, they are all the same, "enemy combatants".
Under the provisions of the Secretary of the Navy Memorandum Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatant Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base Cuba ... An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."
The US has sought out loopholes in the Geneva Convention in order to justify this, but that too is unethical.
I agree to the point that the text of the GC may well requiire more than the Taliban present on the battlefield to be guaranteed POW status, but certainly the US is in wholesale violation of the spirit of that treaty, and I'm opposed to that sort of skulduggery, which I find to be as morally bankrupt as extra-judicial rendition and torture.
By all means hold them as POW's until the conflict is over, to assure national security, and what have you. But treat them well, and with respect, and don't fall into the absurdity that they are criminals simply for fighting for the other side.
Horse manure and you know it.Why not, it seems to be a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. It's at least as distinctive and recognizable from a distance as a US camo uniform.
You are the one who repeatedly claimed that the CSRT was competent and fair.It is immoral to fight a war and assert that the enemy soldiers arrayed against you are criminal for no other reason than they are fighting a war.
The US has sought out loopholes in the Geneva Convention in order to justify this, but that too is unethical.
Is this your way of saying that you were wrong?
Do you bother to attempt to grasp the legal points involved or is this just poor Omar.It is immoral to fight a war and assert that the enemy soldiers arrayed against you are criminal for no other reason than they are fighting a war.
Seeingly you believe that everyone who has given legal advice to commanders about this just obviously inherently dishonest, rather than that there is more than your perspective.
Yes. Do you?Do you bother to attempt to grasp the legal points involved or is this just poor Omar.
Maybe 20 years ago I would have a hard time believing it too, but we are talking about the same organization that thought extra-judicial rendition and the torture of Mahar Arar was a fine idea.Seeingly you believe that everyone who has given legal advice to commanders about this just obviously inherently dishonest, rather than that there is more than your perspective.
You know what?
I have no faith whatsoever that the US military is a moral organization. I think it's wholesale out of control. It would be an interesting sociological study to look at why.
The facts here are pretty damning: Refusing to hold a trial on American soil because that would confer rights on the accused, suppressing absolutely critical evidence, lying, misrepresenting, torture, and systemic interference in the court proceedings.
It would be hard to believe all that if it weren't so well covered in the news media.
Nope. Such a turban is at least as distinctive at a distance, probably more distinctive, than a typical US combat uniform.Horse manure and you know it.
You're in denial.
I'm sure the Taliban continue to wear their black turbans when NATO troops are around.Nope. Such a turban is at least as distinctive at a distance, probably more distinctive, than a typical US combat uniform.
You're in denial.
They would never try to blend in.
He wasn't captured on American soil so why should he be tried on American soil?Refusing to hold a trial on American soil
What in blazes is a Canadian citizen (by birth) doing in Afghanistan shooting at our friends the Americans?
You're thinking too much. You're going to hurt yourself.He wasn't captured on American soil so why should he be tried on American soil?
What in blazes is a Canadian citizen (by birth) doing in Afghanistan shooting at our friends the Americans?
Speaking of Omar, the Toronto Star (the "Red Star") published a bunch of nasty letters from readers ("Red Readers"?) saying that Canada is such a lousy country for not coming to the aid of Omar. INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Canada is such a lousy country that the entire Khadr clan refuses to pack their bags and leave even though they are perfectly free to do so.
They must have been taking heat for running the columns against poor Omar, as well as the polls that show most Canadians say keep him in Guantánamo or ship him back to Afghanistan.Speaking of Omar, the Toronto Star (the "Red Star") published a bunch of nasty letters from readers ("Red Readers"?) saying that Canada is such a lousy country for not coming to the aid of Omar.
