Patterico's Pontifications

7/16/2008

Gitmo Detainee Sobs on Video — But for Himself, Not from Remorse for the U.S. Army Medic He Killed

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:36 am



A Gitmo detainee cries that his interrogator doesn’t care about him, on video.

Well . . . we care about the U.S. Army medic he killed. That’s caring, right?

His family is a piece of work, too:

Following Khadr’s capture, his sister said the death of Sgt. 1st Class Christopher J. Speer was no “big deal”. His mother, who said she would rather see her sons at al-Qaeda training camps than “be on drugs or having some homosexual relation” in Canada, insulted some Canadians.

If you’re hellbent on blaming someone besides this kid for his plight, don’t blame the U.S. Government. You might start with that witch.

53 Responses to “Gitmo Detainee Sobs on Video — But for Himself, Not from Remorse for the U.S. Army Medic He Killed”

  1. Charge her with a hate crime with the local “Human Rights Commission”. She clearly is promoting hate for Homosexuals and occasional pot smokers.

    martin (0bd3dd)

  2. In no way should this terrorist be released. If there’s no information to be had from him, EXECUTE HIM!!!!

    PCD (5c49b0)

  3. From the article quoted at Michelle’s site (interestingly, the page itself at MSNBC has been removed):

    But another son, 22-year-old Abdullah Khadr, backed the idea of martyrdom for Islam.

    “Every Muslim dreams of being a shahid (martyr) for Islam,” he said. “Everybody dreams of this, even a Christian would like to die for their religion.”

    Wow, he got it right that many of us Christians would welcome dying for our faith. What we would not like to do is kill for our faith, and that terrorists can’t see the difference is exactly why we’re trying to defend ourselves and your own countrymen against their rush to kill others to get to Heaven. (NSFW WARNING)

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  4. Yeah, they all want to be martyrs – as long as someone else is doing the actual martyring. You can see how anxious the kid is to die for his cause – “Mommmy!”

    Dmac (416471)

  5. The Left in this country is far more concerned over the hurt feelings of slime like this dirtbag in Guantanamo Bay and his vile little family, than the good Army medic he murdered.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  6. Isn’t killing a medic a war crime – where is the outrage?

    Perfect Sense (23c691)

  7. And thus two wrongs a right doth make!

    David Ehrenstein (85f463)

  8. Perfect Sense,
    It depends. Some medical personnel have abandoned their markings to minimize their signature on the battlefield, and have thus forfeited their protected status.
    To deliberately target medical personnel who are properly marked and abiding by the laws of war is, however, a war crime.

    XBradTC (e3b00a)

  9. I agree that it’s hard to feel sympathetic for this kid, and even harder to find any sympathy for his family.

    But taking people prisoner and torturing them for years and making them “disappear” is a bad policy even if the people you are doing it to are your enemies. And doing it to stupid, badly wounded kids, is even worse.

    When they’re terrorists dive-bombing our buildings, and we’re combing the desert looking for them, it’s real easy to see who the bad guys and good guys are. When we’re locking up their kids and torturing them, and they’re attacking our military who are occupying their homelands, it starts to look like a battle between emperialists and rebels.

    Bin Laden is pscycho, but he sure knew how to manipulate the U.S. into making his terrorist organization look a lot more noble than they really are.

    Kids turning 18 in Afganistan today were 11 when 9/11 happened. Their whole teenage lives the U.S. have been occupiers of their country, and the truly horrific acts of 9/11 are a faint memory to them. To them, Al Queda isn’t a bunch of crazies killing innocents — they’re tenacious rebels, challenging invaders.

    What better recruiting tool for a terrorist organization than that?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  10. Phil – If this guy was disappeared, why did you see him on national TV last night? It seems as though he was not disapeared very well. If you want to apologize for the actions of the terrorists, fell free. Just do not expect us to agree with you. Especially since we just like to kill, jail, and oppress minorities.

    JD (75f5c3)

  11. …she would rather see her sons at al-Qaeda training camps than “be on drugs or having some homosexual relation” in Canada…

    Good Lord. Are those the only choices left for kids in Canada?

    Kevin (834f0d)

  12. 8, Phil, you are not only an apologist for these terrorists, you are a recruiting tool.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  13. “I agree that it’s hard to feel sympathetic for this kid…”

    If it was up to me I’d show exactly as much mercy to captured Al Qaida guerrillas and terrorists as they showed to the totally INNOCENT American children murdered by Al Qaida on 9/11/01.

    Which is no mercy at all.

    Hang the little shit.

    Dave Surls (b80f22)

  14. Phil– you’re projecting our culture onto the kids over there, and insulting their intellect at the same time.

    Those kids also remember the Taliban. They may have mothers or sisters who are missing fingers from when they were caught wearing nail polish, and may have been flogged if they were caught flying a kite. Their sisters may have been shot for being outside without a male relative.

    They may have lost family to the terrorists the Taliban hosted, al-Qaeda– these are not friendly folks.

    It is highly probable that the young man in the video was told to cry, to hurt the infidel.

    I cry for those he hurt, instead.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  15. We do make people “disappear” for long periods of time, JD. Just because we’re now learning about some of the people who “disappeared” doesn’t mean we didn’t do it.

    By “disappearing” people, I didn’t mean to imply that they’re killed or that this is some sort of holocaust. But it’s still terrible policy if the ultimate goal is to reduce terrorism.

    I’m not apologizing for terrorists. I called bin laden “psycho” and said they look “more noble than they really are.”

    There will always be lone pscychos out there who lose all sense of right and wrong based on outrage over injustices they can’t control. The problem is, the more injustice and arbitrary, oppressive government action you allow, the more such people you have.

    Take homegrown American terrorist Tim McVeigh. He went nuts obsessing over Waco and Ruby Ridge. Imagine if the U.S. had responded to McVeigh’s bombing by declaring martial law in his home state.

    What if we had 10 times as many Ruby Ridges and Wacos in the U.S.? I bet we’d have quite a few more people thinking that Tim McVeigh wasn’t so crazy, and quite possibly imitating him. I’m not saying they would be justified, but that their actions would be inevitable, in light of human nature.

    The same goes for the terrorism that is growing in the middle east. Yes, those terrorists are wrong, and do evil things, just like McVeigh. But as more and more arbitrary and oppressive injustices happen over there, it becomes predictable that more and more people will start acting like that.

    If we’re occupying these countries for extended periods of time — even with good intentions and relatively humane policies — it’s inevitable that some people there will be turning into terrorists obsessed with attacking us. Thus, if we fight terrorism by occupying whole countries well … the cycle is obvious.

    I don’t think any of this is apologizing for terrorism. It’s simply recognizing that terrorism is not entirely spontaneous and unpredictable.

    And if you think terrorism is just evil people being evil, or simply caused by Islam, just look at Kazinski and McVeigh. Neither of them erupted spontanously into terrorism, or were taught it at church — they became terrorists by obsessing over perceived injustices. If you create more opportunity for perceived injustice, more people will start acting like terrorists.

    I’m not morally equivocating America with the terrorists. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afganistan is certainly far less arbitrary and unjust than, say, that of Russia into Afganistan, or China into Tibet. But they’re still unproductive and unnessessary, and as far as I can tell, they simply expand the cycle of terrorism we started out trying to fight.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  16. We are creating terrorists by killing them. Addition by subtraction, right Phil?

    JD (75f5c3)

  17. I should note that I’m not saying Iraq and Afganistan aren’t ultimately better off now as a whole, or that the majority of citizens in those countries don’t now see our invasion as a good thing. That may be true in Iraq at this point, and could be someday in Afganistan.

    I’m saying that if you want to reduce terrorism against the U.S., the invasion and long-term occupation of the oppressive nations where terrorism festers doesn’t seem to be the answer, at least not anytime soon. Ultimately, perhaps we could invade, occupy, democratize and westernize the entire middle east. But that would be a terribly long, very bloody process.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  18. “Take homegrown American terrorist Tim McVeigh.”

    We did take him. Then we tried him and executed him.

    Good idea. Let’s apply it to all captured terrorists and guerrillas.

    Dave Surls (b80f22)

  19. Phil, your analysis completely ignores that the extremists in the Middle East consider it the West’s fault that they have oppressive governments in the first place. You are finding excuses to avoid action, nothing more.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. We are creating terrorists by killing them. Addition by subtraction, right Phil?

    No JD, I don’t think that if we were just killing true terrorists — and that’s what the world believed we were doing — that we would be creating more terrorists, at least not measurably more.

    We aren’t anywhere near that surgical. This is a “war on terror” remember? We’re invading and occupying countries, based on the arbitrary justification that terrorists are there, resulting in inevitable (although unintentional and unavoidable) loss of innocent life. We’re jailing large numbers of terrorismsuspects, some of whom appear to be innocent (at least, we can’t prove they’re guilty), torturing them and holding them for many years.

    That’s not “killing terrorists.” That’s something else.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  21. “I’m saying that if you want to reduce terrorism against the U.S., the invasion and long-term occupation of the oppressive nations where terrorism festers doesn’t seem to be the answer, at least not anytime soon.”

    Just a note to you Phil, this actually seems to be working pretty f@$%ing good at the moment eh?

    Lord Nazh (899dce)

  22. Phil, yes it is something else, its exaggeration on your part.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  23. #17 if liberals had no problems with killing German spies during world war II under FDR and the late term abortion process whereby the infant has her skull pierced by scissors and brain vacuumed out is not considered cruel and inhumane, why the hell are they so damn considerate of vicious terrorists who saw off heads, blow up innocents, etc.? Gitmo is like Club Med compared to what our soldiers went through in Japanese prisons. George Bush senior was fortunate to have not been captured by japs when he was shot down. There is little doubt that he would have been killed. Can McCain honestly say that waterboarding for a very brief time with no lasting effects is equivalent to what he went through at hands of the N.Vietnamese for years on end? Kill all terrorists and let god sort them out. No recidivism. No asshole jihadists returning to blow up innocents. But I guess ACLU doesn’t approve of punishing foreign killers. If we must move terrorists to US, incarcerate themor set them free in Berkeley and SF, Manhattan, Madison, etc. Praise allah and the lightworker.

    madmax333 (b8239e)

  24. The extremists in the Middle East consider it the West’s fault that they have oppressive governments in the first place

    There were who believed that, yes. And we’ve given those extremests credibility with a lot more people by reacting to 9/11 the way we have.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  25. “We’re invading and occupying countries, based on the arbitrary justification that terrorists are there…”

    Good. That’s what we should do. Doesn’t make much sense to invade Switzerland if the terrorists are in Afghanistan.

    Dave Surls (b80f22)

  26. Phil, you are engaging in circular logic at best.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. Just a note to you Phil, this actually seems to be working pretty f@$%ing good at the moment eh?

    Good how? There’s a lot more terrorism in the world in general than before we invaded and occupied those countries. It just all happens to be in the middle east.

    There hasn’t been another 9/11 so far. But it took the terrorists more than 8 years to mount another attack on U.S. soil after the first WTC bombing. And that was without any invasions or occupations of foreign nations. We should wait at least as long as that to really draw a comparison, don’t you think? So what are you comparing the current situation to?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  28. Phil wrote:

    “There will always be lone pscychos out there who lose all sense of right and wrong based on outrage over injustices they can’t control.”

    Yes. These people are called progressives. Together they make up something called the community based reality. You can see them frothing at the mouth at web sites such as Daily Kos, Firedoglake, BalloonJuice, TPM, Atrios, Salon, Hullaballo, SadlyNo, Pandagon, and many others. Politics is personal to these people.

    Thanks for the reminder Phil.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  29. Phil, drawing a line between the first WTC bombing and 9/11 is bad enough, those were two different groups. But when you then try to ignore Al Queda’s actions leading up to 9/11 and the many Al Queda affiliates’ terrorism after 9/11 and ignore the largely successful efforts to push those affiliates back, your comments are just getting sillier.

    Al Queda has been knocked back from mounting operations against US interests like 9/11 and the embassy bombings to a much less threatening class of attacks usually on US troops in contained theatres of war that are prepared to defend themselves. That alone is a great success regardless of actual numbers.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  30. “Good how?”

    Good because we’re taking the fight into the countries that sponsor terrorism and where the terrorists are based, instead of standing around like chumps and letting Hezbollah, Al Qaida, the PLO, whoever attack us and get away with it.

    Here’s how the game is played…Al Qaida attacks us and kills a bunch of our guys, we respond by sailing over to their turf and slaughtering people until they decide its no longer worth the price. If killing a few thousand doesn’t work, then we kill millions, if that doesn’t get the job done, then we kill everyone.

    See what the allies did to Germany and Japan in WWII for an example of how this works.

    Dave Surls (b80f22)

  31. [Comment deleted by guest blogger at Patterico’s request.]

    seamus (551f8e)

  32. Here’s how the game is played…Al Qaida attacks us and kills a bunch of our guys, we respond by sailing over to their turf and slaughtering people until they decide its no longer worth the price. If killing a few thousand doesn’t work, then we kill millions, if that doesn’t get the job done, then we kill everyone.

    Are you being sarcastic? Because this is, essentially, how I see the neocon terrorism response plan. If I’m wrong, you aren’t helping.

    So is everyone on “their turf” a terrorist yet? Or is that something that will come later in your plan?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  33. Gee Dave, that’s brilliant. Not disturbed at all. And liberals are the bad people cause we’re glad the cancer got him.

    Comment by seamus — 7/16/2008 @ 1:40 pm

    seamus,

    Are you the ‘seamus’ who posted this comment on a Tony Snow thread earlier today?

    Just askin’

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  34. Al Queda has been knocked back from mounting operations against US interests like 9/11 and the embassy bombings to a much less threatening class of attacks usually on US troops in contained theatres of war that are prepared to defend themselves. That alone is a great success regardless of actual numbers.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  35. Phil, just a question. I don’t want to pick a fight, because I think you just might be serious about wanting to have a discussion here.

    If America IS indiscriminately killing “brown people” in the third world in response to the 9/11 attacks and other incidents, why are we doing it with expensive GPS and laser designator modules in the noses of the bombs in question? I mean, I’m no military expert, but I think it would be a damn sight cheaper to do all our indiscriminate killing with good ol’ “dumb bombs” like Grandpa used in WW2. Plus, we’re putting forward observers at risk when we ask them to use the laser designators on targets, or observe target areas and report back on which building the Truly Bad Guys are hiding in. Wouldn’t it be easier for us to drop thousands of tons on the general areas where we know the terrorists are located & spare any possible ground casualties?

    If anything, we’ve fought this war with too much of a concern for collateral damage. It speaks well to our humanity, but it shows weakness to the portion of the enemy’s population that believes our unwillingness to take innocent lives is a character flaw on our part.

    Now don’t get me wrong: I don’t want to adopt a “Kill ‘Em All, & Let God Sort ‘Em Out” policy unless we absolutely, positively, undeniably HAVE to adopt it, but I think it would be nice for you to acknowledge that we’re fighting this war with less bloodshed than any war in recorded history.

    Russ from Winterset (208079)

  36. Doh, post #33 continued

    I really don’t see how we can say that Al Queda has been “knocked back” from mounting operations like 9/11. There’s only one 9/11. As for the embassy bombings and other attacks on our military, this is an awfully high-cost way of reacting to a few attacks — mounting full-scale invasions and calling up massive amounts of national guard. Yes, those attacks are terrible, but come on — invading and occupying whole nations?

    Do we know if Al Queda is smaller now than it was before we invaded Afganistan and Iraq? Is it less active? Are there fewer “cells”?

    I haven’t seen any evidence of any of this. I think that the only “success” we’ve had is that we’ve been successful in finding lots of people to fight.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  37. Here’s the right way to deal with enemies who are captured out of uniform, the way that liberals do it when they’re running the country…

    From wiki:

    “The eight men involved in the case were Ernest Peter Burger, George John Dasch, Herbert Hans Haupt, Heinrich Heinck, Edward Keiling, Herman Neubauer, Richard Quirin and Werner Thiel, Burger and Haupt being US citizens.”

    “All were born in Germany and all had lived in the United States. All returned to Germany between 1933 and 1941. After the declaration of war between the United States and the German Reich, they received training at a sabotage school near Berlin, where they were instructed in the use of explosives and in methods of secret writing.”

    “Burger, Dasch, Heinck and Quirin traveled from occupied France by German submarine U-202 to Amagansett Beach, Long Island, New York, landing in the hours of darkness, on or about June 13, 1942. The remaining four boarded German submarine U-584 which carried them from France to Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. On or about June 17, 1942, they came ashore during the hours of darkness. All eight wore full or partial German uniforms, to ensure treatment as prisoners of war should they be captured on landing. The Long Island group was noticed by Coast Guard beach patrolman Frank Cullen, whom Dasch attempted to bribe with $260. Cullen returned to his station and sounded the alarm. The two groups promptly disposed of uniforms and proceeded in civilian dress to New York City and Jacksonville, Florida, respectively, and from there to other points in the United States. All had received instructions in Germany from an officer of the German High Command to destroy war industries and war facilities in the United States, for which they or their relatives in Germany were to receive salary payments from the German Government.”

    “Upon landing, Dasch and Burger turned themselves in to the Federal Bureau of Investigation with some difficulty, since the FBI did not believe them immediately. They convinced the FBI that they were telling the truth and the remaining six were taken into custody in New York and Chicago, Illinois by FBI agents. The FBI had no leads until Dasch gave his exaggerated and romanticized version in Washington DC.”

    “President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened a secret military tribunal on July 2, 1942 which sentenced the eight men to death.[1] The President later commuted the death sentences of Dasch and Burger to life in prison, as they had both confessed and assisted in capturing the others. Indeed, it was Dasch who approached the FBI, offering to turn the men in, which he then did. Burger was part of the plot to turn on the others and cooperated with the FBI extensively. Though all the men confessed, and gave full statements, the remaining six were executed by electrocution on August 8, 1942 in Washington, D.C.”

    Note that these guys never actually blew anything up or hurt anyone. Just the fact that they were enemies who were out of uniiform, intending sabotage was sufficient to execute them (except for the ones who ratted out their friends).

    Note that it took less than two months from date of capture until the day they were executed.

    Note how the liberal courts didn’t try to block the liberal government at every turn.

    Note what hypocrites the lib Dems are (complaining about waterboarding terrorists, after what the libbies have done to captured saboteurs).

    Note also that we eventually kicked Germany’s ass, and that they submitted to occupation once we’d (we being the Alllied powers) demonstrated just how ruthless we could be (like by killing millions of German soldiers and civilians).

    Finally, note that leftist, bleeding-heart, handwringers are totally idiotic.

    Dave Surls (b80f22)

  38. Russ, if you read my posts closely, I’m continually trying to make it clear that I am not saying that these wars and occupations are not, in themselves, atrocities.

    In fact, I agree that we could be doing a lot worse than we are. We’ve gotten rid of a couple bad governments, and killed tons of terrorists (although I do argue that many of those terrorists would never have been terrorists if we weren’t there).

    I just don’t think we’re accomplishing the goal of reducing terrorism. And isn’t that the whole point? Is there another adequate justification for such a huge, expensive military endeavor?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  39. I cried when I was caught, too. Fortunately it was not for doing things that killed people. Sorry, kid, you were old enough to know what you were doing, and now you don’t like the consequences. Deal.

    htom (412a17)

  40. Interesting story, Dave. I have no particular problem with the execution of the six saboteurs, but seriously, what was up with giving life sentences to the guys who saved countless American lives and equipment? I wonder how many potential turncoat Nazis were discouraged from doing so by that move?

    Which goes back to my criticism of the indescriminate “war on terror” — how many unenthusiastic terrorism supporters, or doubters, steel their convictions when they hear about collateral damage in Iraq or Afganistan?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  41. “Gee Dave, that’s brilliant.”

    You should credit Roosevelt and Truman. They’re the liberals who came up the idea of how to utterly smash an enemy and make sure that they don’t cause you any more trouble (namely by slaughtering their soldiers and civilians en masse).

    Sure, liberals, are worthless twats most of the time, but when you need to kill a whole bunch of people in order to get them to do what you want them to do (like surrender)…liberals are the guys who know how to get the job done.

    “And liberals are the bad people cause we’re glad the cancer got him”

    Yeah, libbies are liars, cowards, traitors, thieves, backstabbers and leeches some of whom wish ill on nice people like Tony Snow at the same time they’re crying over the fate of captured terrorists…but, they are also extremely efficient killers, so copying their methods makes sense.

    Ask the citizens of Hiroshimma, if you doubt it.

    Dave Surls (b80f22)

  42. Phil, your “responses” are non-responsive. Circular reasoning / tautologies like this: “I really don’t see how we can say that Al Queda has been “knocked back” from mounting operations like 9/11. There’s only one 9/11.” are not responses. They are your self-delusion in action.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  43. Well, SPQR, calling something a “success” doesn’t make it one. We launched full-scale invasions and occupatios of two countries ostensibly to reduce the threat of terrorism. Now there are more terrorists and terror attacks than before we started.

    You make qualitative distinctions between types of terror attacks to justfy our efforts anyway. I say I donn’t see much if any difference in your distinctions, that’s all.

    Phil (6a7982)

  44. A Gitmo detainee cries that his interrogator doesn’t care about him, on video.
    Oh shut up little Osama!

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  45. “how many unenthusiastic terrorism supporters, or doubters, steel their convictions when they hear about collateral damage in Iraq or Afganistan?”

    In WWII, the Japanese were fighting like insane maniacs, refusing to surrender, flying kamikaze missions against our navy and all that good stuff. They were about as steeled up as it gets.

    Then, we hit them with two atom bombs, and they turned meek and mild in a big hurry.

    Dave Surls (b80f22)

  46. I think that we should just say, OK, we’re releasing all of them, and putting them on a boat heading for the Middle East.

    About halfway across the Atlantic, sink the ship.

    Dana R Pico (c36902)

  47. Phil, if you don’t see a distinction between attacks in the US against US civilians and roadside IED’s in Iraq against US troops, then your ability to make any distinction at all is defective. Seriously so.

    And your arguments similarly silly.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  48. #47
    If it isnt the big feet joe.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  49. Dana’s got it. Except the eco-nuts will have a vapor attack when they find out a poor whale had to make love in unfamiliar surrounds due to the sinking.

    FDR did open a Guantanomo during WWII, only they filled it with American citizens who were only guilty of having come from Japan.

    And that’s fine by me. We rightly saw the war as an existential threat to, at a minimum, a free ‘Western’ life. A pox on all houses that give no benefit of the doubt to their political opponents when they’re out of power. That’s the only important part of a democracy – acceptance when you lose. Since the Dems missed the Gore layup, my observation is that the Dems have confused priorities (as a collective, not individually). From the Iraq War to Immigration Reform (betrayal the equivalent of Gingrich not comprimising on welfare reform in order to deny Clinton a legislative victory in time for his re-election) the Dems have been playing a dangerous game. And getting away with it thanks to their media enablers.

    Libertard (cc1676)

  50. “Now there are more terrorists and terror attacks than before we started.”

    Phil – Do you have a source for these claims?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  51. This ratbag’s father took him and another son over there from Canada. The father and the other son were killed. This rtbag is lucky to be alive.

    davod (5bdbd3)

  52. Is Phil a domestic terrorist too cowardly to participate in violence, except with his mouth?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  53. Phil, you are a voice of reason in this jungle of people who are thinking and acting like the very people they abhor.

    May I suggest reading the book “Three Cups of Tea”. It adds light on the way we think of other cultures and is the real life experience of someone who lived and worked with people from Pakistan/Afganistan Western Frontier.

    Informed (e6981c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4362 secs.