Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Topaz

Widow suing Khadr

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

My excuses for pacifism are values and principles - like the ones my grandparents fought for - ending tyranny not supporting it.

Pacifists think they're honorable because they don't want to fight or hurt anyone.  I used to be a pacifist.  But there's no such thing as pacificism when others are wanting and trying to kill you or take your land and resources etc, which has been the case since the beginning of history and has never ceased to this day.  All it means is you're happy to not fight while you allow others to fight for you to protect you.  It means you're naive and hypocritical, whether you know it or not.  If we didn't have a military and the US/NATO didn't protect us, China or Russia or whomever else would invade us and take our land.

If you think that if we're just nice enough and try to make peace with the people that want to kill us & take our stuff and that we'll all be friends you're wrong.  Sometimes it can work, but many other times not. Chamberlain tried to make peace with Hitler and appease him, it didn't work and nothing the UK did would changed Hitler's ambitions.  Obama tried to hit the "reset button" with Putin, it didn't work.  Sometimes there's just people with bad intentions out there.  Your grandparents didn't defeat tyranny with hugs & handshakes.

I think you're a kind-hearted person, but you have a very naive and unrealistic view of how the world and human beings work, as is the case for many leftists.  Look at Jimmy Carter, a very nice man, but too nice.   America's enemies took advantage of his kindness and ate him alive.  Happened with Obama to an extent too.

Being nice all the time doesn't work, some people will take advantage.  Being mean and aggressive all the time doesn't work either, everyone will hate you & never trust you.  That's why you need to be somewhere in the middle, which is assertive, in other words you can be nice as long as others are too but you also need to stand up for yourself when people try to push you around.  This is as true in life as it is in politics.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2020 at 11:30 PM, Abies said:

The plea is a very significant part of this argument and that he is appealing his charge at the tribunal.

As I said they have no will to hear Omar's appeal, it's not about the law, this is a political decision. One question that continues to come up is what if he does win an appeal, what next, do you think the US government will offer to pay him out , he was after all charged with 5 war crimes , not just the murder case.....and do we really think such an award would not be redirected to the widow by US court.. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/6184631/omar-khadr-military-court-limbo/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eyeball said:

I feel precisely the same way you do about leaving my fellow human beings under the fists of the dictators and warlords that our side supports. So long as our country chooses that path I'll turn my back on you and your brothers and sisters.

It takes quite an entitled,  spoiled, and ungrateful attitude to say that.  The only reason you can sit comfortably and type that is because Army Guy and his brothers and sisters protect you from the people that want to kill you and take your stuff.  I don't agree with everything he says but holy crap man.

I certainly don't agree with everything we did in the Afghanistan War, but it was a just and necessary war, unlike Iraq.  If not for Army Guy and co. al Qaeda would still be in Afghanistan protected by the Taliban and plotting to kill you and I.  But I'm sure you feel bad for bin Laden et al.  It's always our fault, we're the bad guys.  There's tyrants and blood on both sides.  It's war.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Abies said:

No I didn't remove it from context you are simply cherry picking to fit your world view. I have already showed you your own sources do not agree with you.

You are just arguing in bad faith. 

Ignoring what I said won't make it go away. Pretending to documents are not attached to one another and removing one from its actual context won't change its meaning either...but hey its cherry picking....no actually its not, with due respect I am not cherry picking, I am simply asking you to read documents in context. When you read any document, you don't isolate it from the documents it follows and expands on and pretend it does not just like when you read the sections in a statute, they can not be read in isolation of the remaining sections of the statute unless it specifically states to do so. This is just basic law not cherry picking. I have no reason to write what I did simply to disagree with you calling soldiers terrorists. The child soldier principles never contemplated terrorists but recruitment into state armies. It has been expanded to mean children recruited into militias, i.e., uniformed armies in civil wars in Africa bot those militias do not recognize any UN conventions and in particular the Geneva Convention on the treatment of soldiers. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. They recognize no laws anywhere and they may not even want to rule the state they cause terror in. Militias usually are controlled by a leader who does.

Such distinctions are essential if you want to draft and create principles that make sense. Simply blurring distinctions and think you have a one size fits all set of  principles is not only illogical but won't work. If you want to pretend treaty principles  intended for conventional armies also apply to terrorists is nonsensical.

When a treaty is drafted by the UN with principles it is NOT a law. It is a suggestion of a set of principles. Countries who then sign on to the treaty (signatories) agree to incorporate those principles into their domestic laws. Each nation is sovereign. The UN can not pass a law telling a country what to do, it can only suggest.

Countries control their state armies and so can incorporate the principles of say the Geneva convention on treating war prisoners into their internal domestic and military laws if they so choose. If they do its their choice but it can not be imposed on them and its not a law until they turn it into one internally. Until then it is a suggestion.

If a country chooses to incorporate a law it applies to its military. Terrorists don't follow any laws so telling Canada or the US to follow a set of principles terrorists do not makes zero sense.

Canada does not recruit child soldiers or terrorists, other countries rebellious forces or terrorists do. No Kadr was not recruited into the Canadian Armed Forces so the convention you call a law's application to Canada ended there. Once he gets recruited into a terrorist outfit the responsibility for his actions remain with Kadr himself, his parents, the terrorists who recruited him.

Canada inherits Kadr once he's apprehended. Then their domestic criminal laws kick in once he returns.

Thus the Youth Offenders Act and Criminal Code, the two laws you seem oblivious to. As well when he sues the country, that is civil law, i.e., he sues in a non criminal court for financial compensation for a tort (wrong-doing) he feels his country did to him.

When someone is injured, the courts are supposed to ask, would a reasonable person have placed himself in the position he was in immediately prior to his getting injured and does the injured person bare any or all responsibility for placing himself in a position that exposed him to injury.

In your world you skip the applicable laws and legal reasoning and simply assume because he was a child he is entitled to money and is a victim on his return to Canada. It suits your clear political biases that Kadr is some kind of romantic hero because you identify with his values, but its not how the law works. We don't  ignore anything that does not suit your narrative of entitlement for terrorists who conveniently in your world are both children to escape any responsibility but heroes for being terrorists in foreign countries fighting governments you do not like. Kadr was no hero to be romanticized. He was in Canadian law a minor who engaged in serious crimes. If you want to use an extreme definition of brainwashing to claim he had no way of knowing what he was doing because he was brainwashed then deal with the fact he no longer is now and has the identical opinions as when he was brainwashed. Deal with the fact his brother underwent the same conditions he did and rejected all those values Kadr still defends.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2020 at 5:53 AM, Rue said:

Ignoring what I said won't make it go away. Pretending to documents are not attached to one another and removing one from its actual context won't change its meaning either...but hey its cherry picking....no actually its not, with due respect I am not cherry picking, I am simply asking you to read documents in context. When you read any document, you don't isolate it from the documents it follows and expands on and pretend it does not just like when you read the sections in a statute, they can not be read in isolation of the remaining sections of the statute unless it specifically states to do so. This is just basic law not cherry picking. I have no reason to write what I did simply to disagree with you calling soldiers terrorists. The child soldier principles never contemplated terrorists but recruitment into state armies. It has been expanded to mean children recruited into militias, i.e., uniformed armies in civil wars in Africa bot those militias do not recognize any UN conventions and in particular the Geneva Convention on the treatment of soldiers. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. They recognize no laws anywhere and they may not even want to rule the state they cause terror in. Militias usually are controlled by a leader who does.

Such distinctions are essential if you want to draft and create principles that make sense. Simply blurring distinctions and think you have a one size fits all set of  principles is not only illogical but won't work. If you want to pretend treaty principles  intended for conventional armies also apply to terrorists is nonsensical.

When a treaty is drafted by the UN with principles it is NOT a law. It is a suggestion of a set of principles. Countries who then sign on to the treaty (signatories) agree to incorporate those principles into their domestic laws. Each nation is sovereign. The UN can not pass a law telling a country what to do, it can only suggest.

Countries control their state armies and so can incorporate the principles of say the Geneva convention on treating war prisoners into their internal domestic and military laws if they so choose. If they do its their choice but it can not be imposed on them and its not a law until they turn it into one internally. Until then it is a suggestion.

If a country chooses to incorporate a law it applies to its military. Terrorists don't follow any laws so telling Canada or the US to follow a set of principles terrorists do not makes zero sense.

Canada does not recruit child soldiers or terrorists, other countries rebellious forces or terrorists do. No Kadr was not recruited into the Canadian Armed Forces so the convention you call a law's application to Canada ended there. Once he gets recruited into a terrorist outfit the responsibility for his actions remain with Kadr himself, his parents, the terrorists who recruited him.

Canada inherits Kadr once he's apprehended. Then their domestic criminal laws kick in once he returns.

Thus the Youth Offenders Act and Criminal Code, the two laws you seem oblivious to. As well when he sues the country, that is civil law, i.e., he sues in a non criminal court for financial compensation for a tort (wrong-doing) he feels his country did to him.

When someone is injured, the courts are supposed to ask, would a reasonable person have placed himself in the position he was in immediately prior to his getting injured and does the injured person bare any or all responsibility for placing himself in a position that exposed him to injury.

In your world you skip the applicable laws and legal reasoning and simply assume because he was a child he is entitled to money and is a victim on his return to Canada. It suits your clear political biases that Kadr is some kind of romantic hero because you identify with his values, but its not how the law works. We don't  ignore anything that does not suit your narrative of entitlement for terrorists who conveniently in your world are both children to escape any responsibility but heroes for being terrorists in foreign countries fighting governments you do not like. Kadr was no hero to be romanticized. He was in Canadian law a minor who engaged in serious crimes. If you want to use an extreme definition of brainwashing to claim he had no way of knowing what he was doing because he was brainwashed then deal with the fact he no longer is now and has the identical opinions as when he was brainwashed. Deal with the fact his brother underwent the same conditions he did and rejected all those values Kadr still defends.

 

 

You are making a lot of baseless assumptions on my views and positions. Quite telling you are relying on a red herring as an argument rather than countering my points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it turns out Omar is not a popular man in the US, US civil courts will not force military courts to hear Omar's appeal....go figure it has nothing to do with justice for a terrorist, but more about the politics around it, the US is not going to admit they were wrong and give Omar nothing for his troubles...

But mean while in Canadian courts, they  have made a decision to force Omar to answer the widows questions, she wants to know of all the statements he has made which ones were false as he claims.... our courts suggest she has the right to know, what is true or false.. This is just going to pour more fuel on the fire....and I hope it does...

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should a convicted terrorist be allowed on commercial airlines in Canada?  This article is from 2015:

https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/is-omar-khadr-allowed-to-board-an-airplane/

Turns out - Yes.  He can travel freely in Canada on any airline.

Even though another passenger was outraged to see Khadr on this same flight and videotaped the experience, it was reported by Ezra Levant/Rebel so I'm sure will be discounted as fake news.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were going to arrest Ezra for jaywalking...public enemy #1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while thousands of Canadians have drawn a line in the sand , to stand up for Omar's god given Canadian rights, we seem to forget the rights of the 159 Canadians that were killed in Afghanistan, and there 260 children that have no fathers or mothers to hold them, or the 2070 soldiers wounded while over in Afghanistan lives changed forever and still battling our nations in courts for rights that every other Canadians already has....., and lets not forget the 410 soldiers who have taken their own lives since the conflict ended, a number that continues to climb every month because our nation was not capable of dealing with mental health issues to stop their minds from torturing them to death..... 

and finally lets not forget the thousands upon thousands of Afghans lives lost due to terrorist attacks, taken by the same terrorist group Omar belonged to, swore allegiance to.....

97 of those that had died , died of IED's , the same ones Omar and his buddies built.. Most of which came from this same terrorist group... 

All these men and women served their nation, they where CANADIANS before anything, born from around Canada, in small rural towns, big cities their only crime was answering their countries call, to carry out our foreign policy on foreign lands....They came home to lots of things metal health issues, a country unprepared to help them medically or deal with the mental health crises, the PAY out to Omar was another slap in the face, here a convicted terrorist, found guilty of murdering a US soldier, receives 10.5 million, while hundreds of veterans have to prove every year that there arms and legs did not grow back and are still entitled to a small vets assistance allowance...forcing some of them to challenge our courts for basic treatments and services that every Canadian already gets.  They are not looking for medals, they don't want your pity, nor do they want a pat on the back...what they want is to be treated like any other Canadian...if they had 1/2 of the support Omar has , they would not be battling our own nation in our courts for rights every Canadian already has.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

They are not looking for medals, they don't want your pity, nor do they want a pat on the back...what they want is to be treated like any other Canadian...if they had 1/2 of the support Omar has , they would not be battling our own nation in our courts for rights every Canadian already has.  

Maybe they should have joined at the age of 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any update on the lawsuit?  I hope the wife cleans Omar out, and leaves him with nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just that the Canadian courts will force Omar to answer some of the widows questions about what Omar thinks was false testimony. US political spectrum have already outlined they have no intention to reopen Omar appeal... maybe next US government...until then Omar the terrorist is branded for life . and all his fan boys will be singing the blues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Just that the Canadian courts will force Omar to answer some of the widows questions about what Omar thinks was false testimony. US political spectrum have already outlined they have no intention to reopen Omar appeal... maybe next US government...until then Omar the terrorist is branded for life . and all his fan boys will be singing the blues...

I don't know it seems you're the ones doing all the whining he's got $10 million and he'll probably outlive 90% of the bitter old conservatives who hate his guts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Kadr was successfully sued for $134 million in a Utah court which Canadian courts refused to acknowledge in 2017 when the widow of the decease  attempt to collect it from Kadr in Canadian court.

2. Since then Omar who claims to this day to be a devout Muslim has used $3 million of the money he was awarded to buy a shopping mall in Edmonton.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/amid-ongoing-court-battles-omar-khadr-uses-3m-of-his-settlement-money-to-buy-edmonton-mall

3. Kadr who claims to this day he is a devout  Muslim does not follow his own religion in particular he does NOT acknowledge:

"1.Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”

2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.

6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .”

9. The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]"

source for above:https://www.juancole.com/2013/04/islamic-forbids-terrorism.html

He also does not practice this basic precept of Islam:

"Charity and punishment

It is narrated by Anas bin Malik that the Prophet said: Verily charity appeases the wrath of Allah and eases the sufferings of death. (Tirmidhi)"

source: https://mail.yahoo.com/d/folders/1?.intl=ca&.lang=en-CA&.partner=none&.src=fp

Whether Kadr even practices zakat by donating 2.5% of his wealth annually to the needy is another question but he also ignores this basic set of precepts of Islam:.

source:https://www.al-islam.org/greater-sins-volume-1-ayatullah-sayyid-abdul-husayn-dastghaib-shirazi/fifth-greater-sin-murder

He also ignores this basic precept of Islam:

 

By way of repentance, a person who has committed a willful murder should surrender himself to the heir of the murdered person. The successors of the murdered person have a choice of either avenging the death or accepting the ‘diyah’. That is, they can forgive him or kill him in retribution.

If the murderer is forgiven, Three things become obligatory on him:

1) Freeing a slave

2) Feeding sixty poor people

3) Keeping sixty fasts

If freeing a slave is not allowed by the law, the other two penalties should be fulfilled.

Accidental and Intended Murder

Even in the case of an accidental murder the heirs of the victim are to be paid the ‘diyah’. But they should forgive the killer.

Apart from this the Three penalties should be imposed, that is, freeing a slave, feeding sixty people and fasting for sixty days.

Similarly cutting off a part of someone’s body is a Greater Sin. Those who intend to study this subject in detail are requested to refer to the books of Jurisprudence."

 

In Islamic law Kadr committed Qati-i-amd:

 

"2.1. Qatl-i-amd (Intentional murder) 
Qatl-i-amd (Intentional murder) is the deliberate killing of another with a lethal weapon or instrument such as club, a sharp stone, or fire. The jurists have stated that there are three basic conditions for intentional murder: (i) the victim must be a living human being; (ii) the victim must have died as a result of the action of the accused and  (iii) the offender has willful intention of causing death of the victim."

Nothing in Islamic law discusses or allows diminished capacity.
 
The bottom line is if Kadr was a true Muslim he would not touch the money he was awarded as he knows it comes from a sinful act.
 
Interesting all the people who claim Islam is a peaceful religion and does not condone terrorism condone what this person did in the name of Islam and engage in a Western concept of diminished capacity to claim he didn't need to follow his own religion which he claims to this day he follows without question.
 
Kadr is a two faced murderer.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 3:38 AM, eyeball said:

I don't know it seems you're the ones doing all the whining he's got $10 million and he'll probably outlive 90% of the bitter old conservatives who hate his guts. 

He might live a long time, he might not.  It doesn't change the fact that he's human garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shady said:

He might live a long time, he might not.  It doesn't change the fact that he's human garbage.

And still a better human than you AFAIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And still a better human than you AFAIC.

We can agree to disagree.  Mainly because I've never murdered a doctor.  Seems like a pretty low bar to clear. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shady said:

We can agree to disagree.  Mainly because I've never murdered a doctor.  Seems like a pretty low bar to clear. :lol:

Absolute nonsense. No one was murdered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eyeball said:

Absolute nonsense. No one was murdered.

 

The grenade just threw itself. Happens all the time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The grenade just threw itself. Happens all the time.

My understanding is that the grenade was thrown after the American troops could safely approach the building to determine is there were any terrorists left alive.  Khadr was the only one alive - logically, it was only he who could have thrown it.  This makes sense because Speers was a medic and would not have been approaching the building at any other time except after the firefight.

EDIT:  No, I'm mistaken, I was thinking of another case.  Nevermind. :wacko:

Edited by Goddess
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Absolute nonsense. No one was murdered.

Absolute nonsense.  The doctor didn’t kill himself.  Omar killed him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Goddess said:

My understanding is that the grenade was thrown after the American troops could safely approach the building to determine is there were any terrorists left alive.  Khadr was the only one alive - logically, it was only he who could have thrown it.  This makes sense because Speers was a medic and would not have been approaching the building at any other time except after the firefight.

EDIT:  No, I'm mistaken, I was thinking of another case.  Nevermind. :wacko:

 

The mines he built were for use...not decoration. He could be responsible for many KIAs and WIAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shady said:

Absolute nonsense.  The doctor didn’t kill himself.  Omar killed him.

No evidence of that was ever examined in a proper court of law. If it had been there would have been so much reasonable doubt because of conflicting eyewitness accounts amongst other things and charges would have been dropped.

You know this, its all been hashed out before.  In any case so what if Khadr had killed him, if actual laws and conventions were being followed properly and his status as an indoctrinated child-soldier were taken into account these would have protected him from the sort of consequences reserved for murderers.  He would never have been charged with anything in the first place.

Again, all hashed out here before and quite likely behind closed government doors in the sort of frank terms that would make outraged snowflakes like you burst into flames that were visible from space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Goddess said:

My understanding is that the grenade was thrown after the American troops could safely approach the building to determine is there were any terrorists left alive.  Khadr was the only one alive - logically, it was only he who could have thrown it.  This makes sense because Speers was a medic and would not have been approaching the building at any other time except after the firefight.

EDIT:  No, I'm mistaken, I was thinking of another case.  Nevermind. :wacko:

He threw it in the heat of the moment but there was no doubt from the trajectory it could only have been from him. No one  contested that. Its a fact that spoke for itself and could not be denied. The arguments  used to get him off were based on is testimony coming from forced confession and a fa failure to properly disclose evidence to him used against him two violations of his rights under the US constitution.

The entire argument of those who now lionize Kadr is that he was a victimized  brainwashed child. He is now an adult, 10 million in his pocket and still as unrepentant as ever profiting from the terrorism he engaged in.

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eyeball said:

No evidence of that was ever examined in a proper court of law. If it had been there would have been so much reasonable doubt because of conflicting eyewitness accounts amongst other things and charges would have been dropped.

You know this, its all been hashed out before.  In any case so what if Khadr had killed him, if actual laws and conventions were being followed properly and his status as an indoctrinated child-soldier were taken into account these would have protected him from the sort of consequences reserved for murderers.  He would never have been charged with anything in the first place.

Again, all hashed out here before and quite likely behind closed government doors in the sort of frank terms that would make outraged snowflakes like you burst into flames that were visible from space.

There were no conflicting eyewitness accounts.  Also the arguments you make do not mean he did not do what he did they simply raise legal procedural issues that nullify his conviction not that he threw the grenade.The fact is the trajectory was proven. It could not have come from anyone else and there were no other witnesses who said it was thrown by someone else. You missed the point and evidence with due respect and the exercise of defining Kadr as a victimized child is romantic but does not explain why today he profits from what he did and has not seen fit as a true Muslim to evidence repentance and provide money to the widow and not profit personally from the death of another.

You can romanticize and turn Kadr into a martyr but the fact remains he is an unrepentant Muslim and using the faith doctrine he claims to follow he is a bad Muslim. Intteresting. There are some on this form who claim Islam is peaceful and does not condone  terrorism but do not point out why Islam would not condone what Kadr did and is doing. I do. I am trying to be consistent and show Muslim terrorists like Kadr use Islam to be terrorist and then Westerners make apologies for this bastardization of Islam and look the other way.

I repeat again Islam does not condone terrorism or profiting from the death of another and it requires repentance for the killing of another, all things Kadr violated and in his religion he claims to follow he has no excuses for his life today based on blood money and refusing to acknowledge what he did.

I argue Kadr shows no repentance because he is a sociopath. His lack of emotions and rehearsed answers all these years later show a manipulative, cold blooded individual. In the future Kadr will snap. It will happen one day at his wife, at one of his children, at a stranger but its only a matter of time until he snaps and rages.

Been there done that. He's know cuddly puppy. He is a wild animal. You do not take wild animals home as pets.

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...