Wanna-B-Fanboy

Sounds like the 2011 iteration of thw Bombers...

I think that's what's at issue- no one is pretty sure.

Is it not also plausible that he couldn't throw the grenade if he was buried under dead bodies?

The definition of ‘Child Soldier’ has two parts: ‘Child’ and ‘Soldier’. No, he is not. At least, not according to the UN laws on the matter (or any other law I am aware of which defines who is, and who is not, a ‘soldier’). The UN laws were written in order to protect the innocent civilians who get in the way of a war first, then the protection of legitimate soldiers second. And, they are very clear on who is and who is not a ‘soldier’ (again – basic Wikipedia search provides clear answers – but much more material confirming this is easily available through any major search engine…): Omar Khadr, unfortunately, does not satisfy these qualifications. Not only was he not a part of a recognized military ‘chain of command’, and not wearing any ‘badges’ or ‘distinctive markings’ that could, even remotely, be construed as ‘uniform’ or ‘fixed distinctive marking’: the crime he is accused of having committed is against the laws and customs of war. ( I can expand on this, at length, if asked, in the comments sections.) Therefore, Omar Khadr DOES NOT satisfy the qualifications of having the status of a ‘soldier’. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a ‘soldier’: a ‘Child Soldier’, an ‘adult soldier’, or any other kind of ‘soldier’. This is a more difficult question – but there is a legal answer! Omar Khadr was aged 15 when he was detained by UN troops and when the premeditated murder of a UN non-combatant medic, which he is accused of having committed, occurred. Different people mature at different rates: at 15, some people really are still children while others are quite adult. Both individual maturing rates and cultural influences are important in determining if a 15-year-old is ‘an adult’ or ‘a child’. What does the law say? Omar Khadr straddled two cultures: In Canada, a 15-year old is, legally, a child. Still, 15-year-olds are able to become emancipated, and legally become adults. Under some circumstances, non-emancipated 15-year-olds are charged with crimes as adults – so the ‘legal precedent’ can be applied both ways: it is a bit of a legal ‘gray area’ in Canada. In Islamist culture, a 15-year-old is considered to be an adult, without any reservations. The Khadr family certainly considers 15 years of age to be ‘adult’ – that is the age at which their daughter was given away in marriage! It is obvious that in his own eyes, as well as according to the culture of his family, Omar Khadr is ‘an adult’. And, in our multicultural society, would it not be offensive to dismiss Omar Khadr’s minority cultural view of his status at that time? OK, ok – so, the ‘multiculturalism’ thing is kind of messed up – and we all know it. Let’s look elsewhere: What does the International Human Rights Law have to say on the subject? (The following is a cut-and-paste of what Wikipedia has to say on this: I usually like to paraphrase things, but I could not hope to make it more clear than they had…) Well, that seems rather clear: once a person has reached the age of 15, he/she cannot be considered to be a ‘Child Soldier’ – even though it’s better to recruit people who are over the age of 18…. 15-year-olds are ‘regular soldiers’! Omar Khadr HAD ‘attained the age of fifteen years’ – so he IS, according to international law, ‘regular soldier’! OK – so we are nowhere closer to the answer of what Omar Khadr actually is: but, I have (hopefully) demonstrated that whatever he is, he is NOT a ‘Child Soldier’! I know – the facts of the situation are unlikely to affect the direction of the public debate…. I have no illusions about it. People who point out the laws and the rules are nowhere near as interesting – and nowhere near listened to – as people who play on our emotions… But, we MUST TRY, mustn’t we? I will take my source of: The Paris Principles which we are signatory to: and The United Nations: over your source. Seriously, I will take my sources of the Paris Principles and the UN over your source of what.... a ******* blog entitled "Xanthippa's Chamberpot"? I'm not even kidding... Xanthippa's Chamberpot... https://blog.xanthippas.com/2009/08/25/omar-khadr-is-not-a-child-soldier-as-per-un-laws/

Hey mark, it didn't show

So, you have nothing .... Awesome. I win.

Please explain how he was not a child soldier. You are welcome to your own opinion, but not your own "facts".

Just because you don't believe in the facts, doesn't mean that they are not true- no matter how hard you plug your ears and scream into the sand. Facts are facts: Not theory. Not fabrications. Not lies. your own personal political/moral beliefs make these facts brought into light or wholly ignored and obfuscate the truth, But facts will remain facts. Just because you don't believe in them- doesn't mean they don't exist. These are facts... choosing to ignore them doesn't make them any less real, it just reinforces one's ignorance.

To be fair he was only 9 years old when his father uprooted them and moved out of Canada...9 yrs old. You make it sound like he willing packed up and moved to Afghanistan to join up with the Taliban... Absolutely this- I agree 100% with this.

If you take facts into consideration, people's views are moot. Seriously, give the above article section a quick read and come back to the table and pick it apart. That would be awesome.

If you would have taken a moment to click on some of those links, you would see that the evidence to convict isn't as rock solid as some would want you to believe. I would link it here... but I know you won't even bother, it doesn't fit your narrative. So I will just quote it here and bold some points for you.

Good read- thanks!

Yup, that is why I will give JT a pass on this- he was left with a flaming bag of Dookie in his hands and he dealt with it. Not a fan of how it was done, but a big fan that he did something of substance with it and not pawn it off down the road.

I love this:

True, but that Victor guy is a different beast altogether... Mad Props to the Argos for uncovering that gem.

Let's hope voters understand the issue in it's entirety with history included and not just the sensationalized headlines while ignoring or obfuscating the relevant facts. It's easy to point and shout about the 10 mil pay out to a convicted terrorist, much harder to do that when you include ALL the relevant facts.

Because this is solely Justin's fault?

Good article. Thanks for sharing.

1) How is Khadr not a Child Soldier? 2) How is Khadr not a Canadian? Child Soldiers and The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not mere "affectations" (click on links and educate yourself a bit) Mark H's link to the article above: "The press has not simply questioned the wisdom of the apology and settlement—it has ignored or obscured the relevant facts that made an apology and settlement necessary in the first place." This is key to understanding why the money and apology are appropriate. (The way it was carried out- total garbage). This whole debacle is much more nuanced than what the media is reporting these days. If you don't understand the notion of child soldier, then reality is lost on you. If you don't believe that the charter of rights extends to EVERY Canadian, then yeah, reality is lost on you.

Yeah, he must have been what... 13 maybe 14 in that pic- If you don't understand the notion of child soldier, then that piece is lost on you. If you don't believe that the charter of rights extends to EVERY Canadian, then yeah, that piece is lost on you. I don't even think you read that article. So keep your snark to yourself.

This an excellent piece- those who are all up in arms about PAYING MILLIONS TO A TERRORIST should give it a good read. People forget often that the military Tribunal and legal framework that Khadr was subjected to was experimental and pretty much a sham.

Because he was in Guantanamo... It was a really slimy trick pulled by their lawyers.

Trudeau and the payout aside (I am not entirely sold on the pay out and apology), give the article a read. If anything, it is another perspective- unless you are not open to that sort of thing.

I found this a well sourced (but left biased) bit of reporting that was very informative and parsed the Omar Khadr ordeal. Beware- there is a left slant, but it is factual. http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/07/opinion/what-if-omar-khadr-isnt-guilty I checked with mediabiasfactcheck.com and the National Observer comes out at: LEFT-CENTER BIAS but Factual Reporting: HIGH https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-observer-canada/ Worth a read if not only to further the debate.

That's not cool in any way shape or form, I wonder what their explaination for that is going to be... Just did a little research on the suit- seems they won the suit by default because OK could not show up for his defense and the Judge awarded it by default. I fail to understand how OK was not considered a child-soldier and treated as such? The 'Mericans are a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.