Omar Khadr refuses to renounce doctrine of Armed Jihad

omar_khadr.jpg.size.xxlarge.promo

Omar Khadr dressed to the nines in a court dock

October 2, 2102

Tarek Fatah
The Toronto Sun

Omar Khadr is on record calling a black female soldier guarding his cellblock a “slave” and a “whore.” Yet today, feminists and human rights groups are rallying around him as if he was the reincarnation of Dr. King himself.

Consider how we would have reacted, if, during the Korean War, a fellow Canadian who not only worked for the North, but, disguised in civilian attire, blew up an unarmed medic sent to aid him.

Suffice to say, irrespective of our political leanings, our reactions would have been outrage and disgust.

But Canada has come a long way since the days when clarity was common; when discerning between good and evil was not that difficult; when traitors proud of their hatred for our western civilization would be shunned, not treated as celebrities.

Had Khadr repented his past and denounced the doctrine of armed jihad of his father, I would have championed his early release. I did it in 2007, but discovered to my shock Khadr’s refusal to renounce armed jihad.

Today, Canada’s chattering classes are treating Khadr, an anti-black racist, a self-confessed murderer, and an unrepentant terrorist, as a celebrity.

In the newsrooms of liberal newspapers, you can sense the glee.

After all, it was they who carefully crafted an image of Khadr as a puppy-faced, innocent teen caught up in the mess of war.

The incessant drumbeat of “child soldier” to describe a willing terrorist, is a lie that cannot withstand scrutiny.

However, in the circus of multiculturalism, we have paid for the sight of an exotic spectacle, not the facts.

These days, who cares if the clown entertaining us is a murderer in disguise?

Khadr was nearly 16 when he was captured in Afghanistan after a shootout, where, he confesses, he killed an unarmed medic sent to save him.

According to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38, (1989), “State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” In addition, article 8(2)(b)(xxvi) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) says, “Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities” is a war crime.

So Khadr did not fit the definition of a child soldier when he committed his crime.

And today, he is an adult, who, if he so desires, can even now denounce al-Qaida, the Taliban and the jihadi ideology. But he chooses not to do so.

Canadians sympathetic to Khadr should realize the doctrine of Islamic jihad against the infidel has no problem with teenage soldiers doing battle, or even leading armies. (Many suicide bombers are teenagers.) After all, it was a teenage general, Bin Qasim, who invaded India in the year 711 and is today the hero of most Muslims in India and Pakistan.

Prophet Muhammad himself appointed a teenager, Osama Bin Zayd, to head an army against the Byzantines in Syria.

After the Prophet’s death, Arabs refused to follow Osama, not because he was a teenager, but because he was a black African and a former slave.

Now we know the tradition from which Khadr belched out his racist slurs. It’s the jihadi tradition.

2 comments for “Omar Khadr refuses to renounce doctrine of Armed Jihad

  1. Nicole
    September 27, 2013 at 2:19 PM

    Khadr should be kept for life in a cell, alone, within the walls of a maximum security penitentiary. This man is a danger to our society. Every ten years, his mental sanity should be checked to evaluate the possibility of re-education and rehabilitation.

  2. Diane
    September 29, 2013 at 11:05 PM

    The story of Khadr killing an unarmed medic sent to aid him is completely contrary to the military report, the testimony of the officer who wrote it and the soldier most directly involved, the charges against Khadr and the Stipulation of Fact which details and explains them. (See Military Commissions web site, Khadr case. The testimony of the officer begins on page 4023 the soldier on 4050 of the trial transcripts.) Khadr’s charges didn’t include killing a non-combatant medical officer, or any other such internationally recognized war crime. His charges amount to being on the wrong side of the war, obviously under the influence of his parents and others where they mainly raised him.

    The relevant law on minors in armed conflict is not either one mentioned in the article. It’s the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (child soldier law). (See treaty, and see transcripts of the military commission.) Canada and the US both adopted it, promoted it and claim to uphold it. By the time this issue came before Khadr’s military judge, he didn’t say Khadr didn’t qualify under the law. It had been superseded by the Military Commissions Act, which has no age limit, and he was charged retroactively under it. The head of the UN child soldier program wrote to the commission, referring to him as a “classic” example.

    Quotes in this article to discredit Khadr seem to come from the report of the psychiatrist who worked with the Prosecution and combed through 8 years of prison and interrogation records for material to use against Khadr at the trial. Of course, the mental health specialists for the Defence had different opinions, and even the other one on the Prosecution team didn’t back up his prediction that Khadr would inspire Jihadists if released. (Macleans obtained the classified video of the doctor’s interview with Khadr, published an article about it and the reports of all four mental health specialists. See also the trial transcripts, near the end, testimony of Prosecution’s psychiatrist at sentencing hearing.)

    This case shouldn’t be dealt with based on sympathies or hatreds, political or personal bias, lies and myths. He should be objectively assessed, in consultation with the appropriate US authorities, and treated according to the law and the facts of the case, not some invented version. Unless the Harper Government has cooked up a plan to keep him in prison beyond the sentence, their apparent vindictive approach doesn’t seem in the interest of either justice or security.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*