Wednesday, July 23, 2008

A little bit about Omar Khadr

Everybody knows who this kid is. He was captured fighting US forces in Afghanistan, rushed to Gitmo, declared an enemy combatant, and tortured for six year while awaiting trial in a US military court. He was either 15 or 16 when captured. Reports I've read differ.

Actually the whole thing backfired, in that it was supposed to break our hearts and make us angry at the awful Americans who dared to keep a sort of Canadian in prison on suspicion of terrorism and of throwing a hand grenade that killed one of their medics.

Problem is, it showed a well-fed, well-nourished, obviously defiant and healthy young man blubbing and moaning and claiming, rather absurdly, that he has no feet or eyes.
"You do have feet" replied a tolerant Canadian agent, "they're on the end of your legs."
Translation: "That spoiled little wog."

I'll give you a little more, but wait a second.

Michael Coren has had the ridiculously good fortune to live in two of the best countries on the planet: Canada and the UK. Born late enough to avoid defending his country from invaders, he emigrated to a country that hasn't been invaded in nearly 200 years. Born into a faith that is not in a minority in either his homeland or his adopted nation, his faith in God is unshakeable, simply because he's right. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light, you know, and Coren knows it because his parents were Christians.

The fact that he hates Khadr says a great deal about Coren. The fact that doesn't even empathise with him says much more. I'm ashamed of my country for first allowing this hateful little man into the country, and for giving him a forum for his bile. He vomits onto the pages of the Sun once a week, and onto the airwaves daily (fortunately on a Christian network), and makes his money by hating homosexuals, liberals, atheists, Muslims and environmentalists.

And furthermore, a man who clearly has eyes and feet, and cries that he doesn't, isn't just trying to get sympathy, you vile fuck. He's damaged goods.
The only valid criticism of the United States is that this young man should have
faced a trial by now. If, however, he had been in prison just a few miles away from Guantanamo on Cuba he would have been beaten to death in one of Castro's death camps. If he had been captured by friends of his family in Afghanistan or Iraq he likely would have been raped, tortured and then slowly decapitated. Irony's a funny old thing.
A few things here. I would like to offer my criticism of the US for invading the country in the first place. I am also criticizing the US for capturing and torturing an "enemy combatant". The US made shit up so they could claim the rules didn't apply. I'm also questioning the legitimacy of trying a man (who once was a boy who may or may not have killed a soldier), for defending what he may have thought of as his home, but certainly though of as his faith
Further, Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq are not engaged in colonial wars (well, the latter two are, but they didn't exactly start them), so the idea that he might have been captured by their forces is a red herring. It's been a long time since Cuba was involved in a military conflict on foreign soil. They tended to be the recipients of foreign force (much like Afghanistan), until they kicked the occupiers out (putting aside all arguments about whether "communism" was good for Cuba). And finally, being captured and tortured by US forces is not ironic. I'd expect a writer to understand irony.
If there has been any abuse over the years it is clearly at the hands of Khadr's own kin.
Which clearly excuses any subsequent abuse.

On Khadr's mother:

She has also, of course, loudly expressed her hatred for western culture and condemned Canada as a vile place where all children are drug addicts or homosexuals.
Coren gets a yellow card for hypocrisy, here, because he feels the same way.
Omar Khadr is a tenuous Canadian at best, unlike most newcomers to the country who love it with pride and passion. If we feel sorry for him and his family, consider the family of the young medic smashed beyond recognition that horrible day six years ago. Good Lord, most people don't even know his name. But they know the name of Omar Khadr.
I don't care about Khadr because he's a Canadian. I feel bad about every poor loser held in that kennel. An accident of geography means I know more about Khadr than any of the other prisoners. As for the medic, I do consider his family, and I feel bad for them, too. They lost their son in a pointless, illegal war for no good reason. Happens all the time. About 9000 other Americans have met similar fates in Afghanistan and Iraq. Fifty-eight thousand in Vietnam (wikipedia), and more than 36,000 in Korea. If the US would stop going to kill yellow and brown people, they might not have so many war memorials.

You know I'm not a fan of this war, and I'm not a fan of the War on Terror, or the War on Drugs, or any other war, really. Supporting this war is bad enough. Supporting the US as they publicly railroad this poor bastard to the gallows is deplorable.

Michael Coren is not only a bigot, he's stupid and hypocritical.

10 comments:

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

Hypocrisy of the "Repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada" Movement

As soon as the Gitmo interrogation tape of Omar Khadr hit the Internet, the blogosphere was flooded with demands to repatriate him to Canada. This wave is reminiscent of a Soviet campaign to free Luis Corvalán from the "fascist regime" of Augusto Pinochet thirty five years ago. The scenario is strikingly similar. A "victim" held by "fascist regimes" this time run by Bush and Harper, and a public outcry for justice. Except for the fact that Luis Corvalán didn't kill anyone and didn't fight for a terrorist group that wants to impose Sharia.

The "repatriate Khadr" crowd describes him as "a child", "a kid", "a boy", and even "a torture victim", with no facts to substantiate the torture claims notwithstanding. They complain about Khadr being mistreated, again, without anything to back up their claims. Some of them are outraged about "child abuse." And they all scream for justice.

They want justice? OK, let's talk about JUSTICE. What about justice for Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer, who was (according to an eyewitness) murdered by this "child"? What about justice for Tabitha Speer, who is a widow because of this "kid"? What about justice for Taryn and Tanner Speer, who are left without a father by this "a boy"? And what about all those Afghani civilians and NATO troops who are a little bit safer because this "torture victim" is behind bars? How many of these "repatriate Khadr" hypocrites concern themselves with justice for real victims? In literally hundreds of posts, we couldn't find a single one.

One would ask, what is the reason for this idiocy? The answer is simple. Ignorance. Complete and utter ignorance. Let's forget for a second that Omar Khadr killed Christopher Speer. Let's forget that Khadr's father was an al Qaeda financier. Let's forget that Khadr's family is known for it being al Qaeda sympathizers. Let's just remember what this "child" was fighting for in Afghanistan.

This is what Taliban-imposed Sharia looks like in real life: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2000/07/hypocrisy-of-repatriate-omar-khadr-to.html

Why don't all of you, bleeding heart demagogues go to Afghanistan and spend a day in a Taliban-controlled territory? And let's talk about Khadr when you get back. If you get back.

Father Shaggy said...

I make no claims that he is a child (though he was), but it's clear that he has been tortured.

Khadr killed Speer in battle. It sucks, but that happens in wars. We do not prosecute combatants when they kill people in war. Any "charges" he may be tried for are bullshit. As for what his father believes, that's irrelevant. We don't try people because somebody else donates to a terrorist organization.

And I'll grant that the Taliban is a bunch of bad dudes. But that's not why the US invaded Afghanistan.

Khadr is not blameless. But the idea that a man can be tried for fighting in a war is a new one.

Sorry about the spottiness of my reply. Most of my arguments were made above, and I'm not feeling well.

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

"it's clear that he has been tortured."

Clear how? What is the evidence?

"We do not prosecute combatants when they kill people in war."

Agree. We hold them until cessation of hostilities. That's exactly what should be done in Khadr's case.

"As for what his father believes, that's irrelevant."

It's relevant when "bring him home" idiots attempt to paint Khadr as a choir boy.

"And I'll grant that the Taliban is a bunch of bad dudes. But that's not why the US invaded Afghanistan."

No? Is there any other reason? Oil, perhaps?

"But the idea that a man can be tried for fighting in a war is a new one."

Really? You must have missed all those war crimes trials in the last 60 years or so.

Father Shaggy said...

The US and NATO invaded Afghanistan after 11 Saudis (And one other guy, who was NOT from Afghanistan) attacked the WTC. They were trying to catch another Saudi who had likely fled to Pakistan. And although Pakistan was a dictatorship, it was OUR dictatorship, so we couldn't go in to catch him. That's why we're in Afghanistan. Regime change had nothing to do with it. Otherwise, we'd not have waited more than 10 years to do it.

As for oil, a more likely scenario is natural gas. And the Taliban actually offered to turn Bin Laden over to the US if proof could be provided that he had orchestrated the attack and was in Afghanistan.

"[C]essation of hostilities". Is that when we conquer Afghanistan, or once we've eradicated terror?

As for the war crimes tribunals, at Nuremburg, Nazis were prosecuted for invading countries and for the death camps. German soldiers were not prosecuted for their involvement. Same with Yugoslavia. And Rwanda. Rank and file soldiers are rarely, if ever, charged, and that would be for war crimes. Throwing a grenade at a soldier doesn't count.

Khadr is a bad motherfucker (or he used to be, he's probably broken), and I probably don't want to hang out with him. But he hasn't done anything illegal yet, and we can't try him for what we think he might do if we let him go.

Of course, the US can't let him go now, because he'll definitely do something to get revenge. I suppose all they can do is martyr him, now. Should have done it on the sly...

Sorry mate. You're not likely change my mind. No matter how many times you call me a demagogue. But you're free to respond or comment further.

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

"11 Saudis (And one other guy, who was NOT from Afghanistan) attacked the WTC"

You're not very good with numbers, are you?

""[C]essation of hostilities". Is that when we conquer Afghanistan, or once we've eradicated terror?"

The latter

"As for the war crimes tribunals, at Nuremburg, Nazis were prosecuted for invading countries and for the death camps."

You're not that good with history either. Invading countries had nothing to do with that. They were persecuted for war crimes, death camps being one of the examples.

"Throwing a grenade at a soldier doesn't count."

Throwing a grenade at a medic with clearly visible insignia might.

"But he hasn't done anything illegal yet"

You mean nothing except for fighting for a terrorist organization?

"You're not likely change my mind."

Of course not, since you seem not to give a shit about the facts.

the rev. paperboy said...

"Michael Coren is not only a bigot, he's stupid and hypocritical."

In other news, other scientists at the Instititute for Studying the Blindingly Obvious discover water to be wet and "american muslim not muslim-american" a bit of a tool.

Father Shaggy said...

I stand corrected:

Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.[79] (Wikipedia)

This would be history again, rather than math.

And how the hell do you eradicate terror? WTF?

The Terrorist organization he fought for is only a terrorist organization in the West. Had he fought on American, European or Canadian soil, he could be prosecuted for being a terrorist. But really, he's no worse than the muhajideen that the CIA sponsored a couple decades before, who were encouraged to do exactly the same fucking thing that Khadr did.

ANd next time he's in a firefight with an invading army, I'm sure he's learned his lesson and will check the arm insignias on everyone before he defends himself.

The US invaded a country and an American soldier died. Sucks to be him, for sure. But them's the breaks. The moral: don't go invading other countries, dipshit. I don't know why you have such a hard on to see this guy hang.

American Muslim, not Muslim-American said...

the rev. paperboy, you must be too fucking dumb to use anything other then degenerate clinches.

"This would be history again, rather than math."

When you're confusing 12 with 19? I guess you can see it either way. But if you need Wikipedia to get your facts about the most documented even in history straight, you shouldn't be bragging about it.

"And how the hell do you eradicate terror?"

You can do it in two ways. You can either kill everyone who espouses radical ideology or you cut off terrorist financing.

"The Terrorist organization he fought for is only a terrorist organization in the West."

That scholarly knowledge of history again! Have you ever considered how much Afghani blood is on Taliban hands? If you take all the Iranians murdered by the Mullahs, all the Arabs murdered by Palestinian terrorists, all the Kosovars murdered by KLA and add them up, you won't even come close to the number of Afghanis murdered by the Taliban.

"The moral: don't go invading other countries, dipshit."

Since you've proven to be completely ignorant of basic facts, you're hardly in the position to make these kind of judgment, dumbfuck. But even after I explained things to you, you seem to be too fucking stupid to put two and two together. If Khadr was defending his country, it sure as hell wasn't Canada. And if he were fighting in somebody else's country, he's nothing more than a terrorist. But the depth of your knowledge must prevent you to understand those simple concepts, dumbass.

Father Shaggy said...

I apologise. I wasn't calling you a dipshit. I suppose maybe Speer for volunteering for such a pointless war, but it's impolitic to speak ill of the dead. I guess Bush/Cheney for starting the war. I want to keep dialogue respectful, so I apologise for introducing the epithet.

And I wasn't bragging about my ignorance, I was posting the correct information. In fact, I'm embarrassed by it. But I let my error stand.

About the war on terror, it's kind of stupid. Terror is an emotion, and being terrifying does little to eradicate it.

I don't dispute that the Taliban were bad dudes. Absolutely. But they didn't start the war, and regime change is not why we went in. And defining terrorism as the number of people you've killed is a sloppy way to go about it, because then the US military gets listed pretty quickly. Over a million dead in Iraq, and nearly a million dead in Afghanistan.

Khadr has some dangerous ideologies, and I disagree with him. But he was in Afghanistan DEFENDING the ideology, not attacking for it. He was a Canadian of convenience, for sure. But where he was born and raised is largely irrelevant. There's a long history of radicals going where the fight is to defend their ideals. Not my bag, but we don't try them when they do. And that's the basic point, really:

The US started this war, NATO went along for the ride, and some American soldiers died. Trying the other side for murder in a military court is absurd, no matter how nasty the other side is.

You're free to stick around and continue to comment, but please keep it civil. Again, I apologise for my ill-advised epithet.

Muslims Against Sharia said...

I also apologize for using language that was clearly inappropriate.

"I guess Bush/Cheney for starting the war."

That's a strange statement, because Islamic fundamentalists were the ones who started that war.

"About the war on terror, it's kind of stupid."

You can call it the war on terror or you can call it the war with Islamic fundamentalists, if it makes more sense to you, but it's the same war.

"But they didn't start the war"

They did. By harboring al Qaeda.

"And defining terrorism as the number of people you've killed is a sloppy way to go about it"

I thought that you were aware of the fact that Taliban targets civilians, which makes them terrorists. I was trying to educate you about the magnitude of their terrorism; I didn't know I needed to start a step before that.

"Over a million dead in Iraq, and nearly a million dead in Afghanistan."

Why not 10 million in each country? Do you really think that pulling numbers out of your ass makes for a good argument?

"But he was in Afghanistan DEFENDING the ideology, not attacking for it."

I really don't think that most of native Afghanis would agree with you.

"He was a Canadian of convenience, for sure. But where he was born and raised is largely irrelevant."

Then why all those little bitches scream about him being repatriated to Canada? Isn't it a little hypocritical? Wasn't their hypocrisy the topic of the original post?

We do if they commit war crimes. And we sure as hell detain them for lengthy periods of time.

"The US started this war"

That's an incredibly inaccurate statement. If I let you use my house to cook meth, I shouldn't be surprised when the cops confiscate it.

"Trying the other side for murder in a military court is absurd"

You maybe correct there. I think he should be detained until cessation of hostilities, but some asshole in the supreme court decided he needed a trial.