Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
egghead

Can Canada not bring 'Jihadi Jack' back to Canada?

Recommended Posts

On 8/19/2019 at 7:16 AM, dialamah said:

Goodale said "Canada is disappointed that the United Kingdom has taken this unilateral action to offload their responsibilities", and we won't be helping him and we won't be bringing him here.   

Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British are supposed to be our friends but they just unloaded a person on us who has far closer links to their country than ours for a bit of cheap publicity. We shouldn't have to deal with him and the Kurds certainly should not. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The British are supposed to be our friends but they just unloaded a person on us who has far closer links to their country than ours for a bit of cheap publicity. We shouldn't have to deal with him and the Kurds certainly should not. 

The crimes he committed were against the people over there. Why shouldn't the people over there punish him?

Share this post


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

The crimes he committed were against the people over there. Why shouldn't the people over there punish him?

That would make sense and it's what the Europeans say. However, the SDF are an irregular army facing possible annihilation by Erdogan. They are in no position to conduct these trials themselves. If they handed these people over to Assad, it's quite possible he could release them to fight the Kurds again. The obvious candidate govt would be Iraq and I think the French have managed to get some of their citizens tried there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The British are supposed to be our friends but they just unloaded a person on us who has far closer links to their country than ours for a bit of cheap publicity. We shouldn't have to deal with him and the Kurds certainly should not. 

Britain is just following Canada's lead, the Harper government passed a law that allows Canada to strip terrorists of their citizenship, the British thought that was a jolly good idea, so they are copying Canada.   Hence once again, dysfunctional Canadian governance backfires against Canada.

The Government of Canada generates chaos, that chaos comes swinging around right back at them.

It's also naive to think that the British are Canada's friends, there are obligations the British have to Canada, but it doesn't mean they like Canada, they see Canada as everyone else does, as an unreliable and capricious free loader who doesn't take responsibility for its own defence but rather relies totally on the Anglo-American alliance.

Quite sure they were thinking; "hah, let's give Canada a taste of its own medicine here"

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telling ya, folks, Canada is a rogue state, Canada has no friends, Canada has bumbled out into no man's land in between the Anglo-American alliance and the Chinese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Britain is just following Canada's lead, the Harper government passed a law that allows Canada to strip terrorists of their citizenship, the British thought that was a jolly good idea, so they are copying Canada.   Hence once again, dysfunctional Canadian governance backfires against Canada.

The Government of Canada generates chaos, that chaos comes swinging around right back at them.

It's also naive to think that the British are Canada's friends, there are obligations the British have to Canada, but it doesn't mean they like Canada, they see Canada as everyone else does, as an unreliable and capricious free loader who doesn't take responsibility for its own defence but rather relies totally on the Anglo-American alliance.

Quite sure they were thinking; "hah, let's give Canada a taste of its own medicine here"

But I thought we were all happy subjects of the same monarch? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

But I thought we were all happy subjects of the same monarch? 

Same monarch, two completely separate chains of command.

As the Queen of England, she provides Whitehall with Her Parliamentary Supremacy.

As the Queen of Canada, she provides it to Parliament Hill.

But she remains above the fray, she does not favour one over the other, the subjects have a direct relationship to her, straight to her at Buckingham Palace, over and above their governments.

In theory, you are in charge, the government is not in charge, you tell the Queen which government you want and when, by democratic representation.

It is treason in either case for Canada or Britain to make war upon each other, but short of war, they don't have to like each other nor get along.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of war, it is all joined together at the highest levels into an alliance.

United Kingdom - United States Security Agreement, Five Eyes and the Anglo-American Joint Strategic (Nuclear) Deterrent. 

Five Eyes finds targets, the Anglo-American deterrent is poised to nuke those targets if necessary.

There is however a pecking order.

The Americans are at the top of the pecking order, because they back everything up, they are the last line of defense and the primary command and control node.

The British comes next as the Senior Partner. 

They are the only ones in the alliance the Americans trust with nukes. The Americans and the British keep the nukes close to the vest.

That is often referred to as the Special Relationship.

Then Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the junior partners.

UKUSSA is often referred to as the Anglosphere.  Five Eyes is FVEY.  FVEY's target acquisition network is called ECHELON

So in Her Majesty's role as Commander-in-Chief, it's all unified,  and whose responsibility it is to do what is stipulated in the agreement.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada will have to accept him if he arrives at the border. How he gets here is his own problem. Maybe his parents will help him get out of there, if they don't also go to jail themselves. They are charged with sending money to fund terrorism, all while just trying to get him out of there.

They have a message for him-

_107068546_mediaitem107068544.jpg

"Thanks, son."

Edited by OftenWrong
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a generational thing, like the Boomers becoming Hippies.

The lost boys of the Millennial Generation wandering off to join strange cults and see the Elephant, stare into the abyss.

It's coming home to roost upon their Helicopter Parents.

If you Helicopter Parent your kids, they don't learn about danger, it makes them reckless.

I know my father loved me with all his heart, but I also knew that if I went completely beyond the pale, he would have said "you're on your own now, boy, I can't help you"

Edited by Dougie93
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

If you Helicopter Parent your kids, they don't learn about danger, it makes them reckless.

 

Like backpacking in Mali or Afghanistan in order to demonstrate that love conquers all...and other high-wire acts sans net.

Share this post


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

 

Like backpacking in Mali or Afghanistan in order to demonstrate that love conquers all...and other high-wire acts sans net.

Back in the seventies, we kids had a lot of free rein, we could get up to all sorts of trouble.

By getting ourselves into trouble, but not wanting to tell our parents, and so having to extricate ourselves from it somehow without their help, is how we learned about personal responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was further reinforced by my surrogate fathers in the military,

Contrary to popular myth, they don't actually just order you around and control your actions.

Orders is not bossing you around, orders is assigning you a mission.

You are a member of a team, you have a job to do, everybody is relying on you, there is no safety net.

Do the job, do it right, the first time, even when nobody is watching, especially when nobody is watching.

In essence, this expands to encompass your neighbors, and society at large, it's a free county, or at least it was when I was growing up.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 12:42 PM, Argus said:

I believe his father was born here and then emigrated to the UK.

sorry for not making myself clear; since someone mentioned that he never set foot in canada, I just wondered how could he apply for his citizenship. Anyway, it turned out that he did visit Canada few times before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to find exactly what acts of terrorism this guy has actually committed, and with all the convicting of him in the media, they still don't really say what exactly he did.  he even denies he was part of Daesh

If he does get to Canada, I don't think the Crown is going to have an easy time convicting this guy, what's the charge?  Simply accusing him of being "Daesh" based on hearsay and media reports is not much of a case.

Again, this just seems like a British tabloid media convicted "terrorist" without much actual evidence of terrorism backing it up.

The politicians are acting hysterically as usual, as if this is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi himself, but he doesn't even amount to Omar Kadr based on the apparent proof to be seen.

They actually captured Omar Kadr in a terrorist compound in battle, and they could even make that case stick.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm trying to find exactly what acts of terrorism this guy has actually committed, and with all the convicting of him in the media, they still don't really say what exactly he did.  he even denies he was part of Daesh

If he does get to Canada, I don't think the Crown is going to have an easy time convicting this guy, what's the charge?  Simply accusing him of being "Daesh" based on hearsay and media reports is not much of a case.

Again, this just seems like a British tabloid media convicted "terrorist" without much actual evidence of terrorism backing it up.

The politicians are acting hysterically as usual, as if this is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi himself, but he doesn't even amount to Omar Kadr based on the apparent proof to be seen.

The best they got is he admitted to wanting to run people down in car in a suicide attack, but even there, he said it like he used to believe that and changed his mind. Pretty flimsy stuff, no actual evidence he joined ISIS that I can see.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The best they got is he admitted to wanting to run people down in car in a suicide attack, but even there, he said it like he used to believe that and changed his mind. Pretty flimsy stuff, no actual evidence he joined ISIS that I can see.

Ah yes, thought crime, I should have known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Pretty flimsy stuff, no actual evidence he joined ISIS that I can see.

This is part of the problem with bringing ISIS fighters back - there's really no way of knowing what exactly they did over there, short of a confession which none of them are about to do.

There is some evidence he was indeed tied to ISIS, but yes - too flimsy for court:

  • Letts himself shared a photo of himself giving the one-finger ISIS salute and Mosul Dam was in the background of the picture - which was in ISIS-controlled territory at the time.
  • He was captured at the Battle of Raqqa - of course, he says he was trying to escape the battle.  I guess if you want to take his word for it, you can.  I have my doubts he is being truthful.
  • In 2018 (but not reported until June of this year) - Letts stated in a BBC interview that ISIS  used to "encourage you in a sort of indirect way" to put on a suicide vest. He said he made it obvious to militants that "if there was a battle, I'm ready".
  • He spoke Arabic and English - which would have made him very useful to ISIS.
Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could easily say that he was in fear of ISIS for anything that he said, he can recant any confession as being coerced, it wasn't a statement made to police cautioned with his rights in Canada.

In Syria they can just shoot him dead on the spot if they like, but once he gets to Canada you have to build a case with Canadian evidence laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why nobody wants to touch him with a ten foot pole, not because he's dangerous, but because he's likely to walk scot free like Omar Kadr once he gets to Canada and the judge throws the case against him out.

The Liberals are already getting beat over the head for Omar Kadr, last thing they need is to be associated with this guy too, particularly after the press has whipped up so much hysteria about him.

Andrew Scheer accused him of committing "monstrous crimes!" and that was what made me look to see what they were, finding not much at all when I did.

It's all hearsay and hysteria whipped up by the British tabloid press which I don't think is evidence which will stand up in court.  

The press and politicians have whipped him up into a bogey for their own purposes, with basically no actual evidence at all.

The British throwing his parents in jail is absurd too, where is the evidence that any monies sent to him actually went to ISIS?  It's ZOMG ISIS McCarthyisst Red Scare nonsense.

The UK is even further down the totalitarian police state rabbit hole than Canada is, but Canada is catching up quick.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

They actually captured Omar Kadr in a terrorist compound in battle, and they could even make that case stick.

All they really had to go on was peach fuzz.

Share this post


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

All they really had to go on was peach fuzz.

Problem with the American case overall was that the Americans invaded Afghanistan under UN Article 51, which is fine, but that doesn't make anybody in the country who might offer resistance a terrorist by default, so once the case moved out of the concentration camp in Cuba, it came apart pretty quickly.

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...