I wonder how drunk Elizabeth May is right now celebrating?

 

12 hours ago, Fraser said:

 

Did you read this on an alt right  blog or something  and were silly  enough  to think  it  was true? 

Only  took about  3 seconds to look up on war child's  website  Dr  Samantha  Nutt's opinion of the situation.

This was your response.  No where does it mention the word "guilty".  And in fact, yes, it doesnt take long to see Nutt's opinion (which I posted) that she felt there was no doubt Khadr did it.  I posted that she believed he did it.  You said it took 3 seconds to find her opinion...which is that he did it.  Were you actually agreeing with me?

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

No, you implied I was lying.  And further hedged by suggesting if I could find an article where she admitted he did it, that it was either a fake news story and/or I was stupid for believing it. 

Ill keep going round and round all day with you.  But Im sure everyone else is tired of it.  You were rude and you were wrong.  If you choose not to admit it, so be it.  Im not remotely emotional about it.  But if we're going to have a reasonable discussion posts where someone does an insulting and smug drive by should either not be allowed or that person should be happy to acknowledge their error.  It would be a positive thing, Fraser, if you simply apologized and admitted you were wrong and that Nutt did, in fact admit there was no doubt Khadr did what he was accused of.

Do you agree that Khadr did it and if so, do you condemn his actions? 

You were lying though, or at the very least confused about the distinction between  the following .  She  didn't say he was  guilty  she said he committed a crime. Two different  things. By saying she thinks he's guilty  you imply  she agreed with the  findings of the gitmo  court.

Just now, Fraser said:

You were lying though, or at the very least confused about the distinction between  the following .  She  didn't say he was  guilty  she said he committed a crime. Two different  things. By saying she thinks he's guilty  you imply  she agreed with the  findings of the gitmo  court.

You're arguing semantics which I have addressed. 

You're calling me a liar now (again).  Shameful.

You were rude then.  You're even more rude now.  And this is the type of immature behavior that derails quality discussions.  Unless your intent is to get the thread locked (and if so, I hope the mods eliminate the problem and not the thread).

7 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You're arguing semantics which I have addressed. 

You're calling me a liar now (again).  Shameful.

You were rude then.  You're even more rude now.  And this is the type of immature behavior that derails quality discussions.  Unless your intent is to get the thread locked (and if so, I hope the mods eliminate the problem and not the thread).

It's not really  a semantic when  the entire position of the organization  is based  around how war children  should be treated. Maybe you weren't  lying but at least  confused  about  the distinction. Probably better word choice  in the future. Lol.

Just now, Fraser said:

It's not really  a semantic when  the entire position of the organization  is based  around how war children  should be treated. Maybe you weren't  lying but at least  confused  about  the distinction. Probably better word choice  in the future. Lol.

I wasnt confused at all.  I never once discussed the position of the organization or the larger opinion of the head of that position.  You're trying to create facts that werent there and then argue them.  You're effectively arguing with yourself.

Im the one that introduced the organization and head of it to the discussion.  I generalized what the organization is.  Because Im far less entrenched in the political aspect of this discussion than you seem to be. Is Omar Khadr your nephew or something?

And for the 4th time, the reason I did so was to quell the mistaken believe that Khadr actually didnt do anything. 

Do you agree with Nutt that Khadr did it?  Do you condemn those actions?  Why do you not want to answer?  Why do you continue to take part in this one shallow aspect of the thread without being willing to stand behind your position?  What's the point?

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I wasnt confused at all.  I never once discussed the position of the organization or the larger opinion of the head of that position.  You're trying to create facts that werent there and then argue them.  You're effectively arguing with yourself.

Im the one that introduced the organization and head of it to the discussion.  I generalized what the organization is.  Because Im far less entrenched in the political aspect of this discussion than you seem to be. Is Omar Khadr your nephew or something?

And for the 4th time, the reason I did so was to quell the mistaken believe that Khadr actually didnt do anything. 

Do you agree with Nutt that Khadr did it?  Do you condemn those actions?  Why do you not want to answer?  Why do you continue to take part in this one shallow aspect of the thread without being willing to stand behind your position?  What's the point?

I agree that he commited  crime. I disagree  that he should have been sent to Guantanamo  bay,  or that a facility  like that should even operate in what could be described  as the civilised  portion  of the world. 

I  also think  it's your m.o. to post silly things  like 'even the head of war child thinks  he's  guilty'  just to argue with people.

1 minute ago, Fraser said:

I agree that he commited  crime. I disagree  that he should have been sent to Guantanamo  bay,  or that a facility  like that should even operate in what could be described  as the civilised  portion  of the world. 

I  also think  it's your m.o. to post silly things  like 'even the head of war child thinks  he's  guilty'  just to argue with people.

Good thing I dont care whatsoever what you think!  But the fact you think its silly does offer insight into your bias.  I stumbled across the quote as I was reading multiple articles on this issue.  I strongly suspect you would never read an article that wasnt supporting your person view.  But since I did, I was surprised Nutt would take that position which I thought added a lot of credibility to her and spoke to her character.

And as I explained 4 times, the relevancy of my post was clear. 

So weird that a thread about a political issue has turned into a battle for the last word. The "silly and/or shameful" count is growing rapidly!

15 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

So weird that a thread about a political issue has turned into a battle for the last word. The "silly and/or shameful" count is growing rapidly!

Seemed to be going well until someone came in making the accusation that anyone offering information that ran contrary to their own views must be getting that info from an alt-right blog.

22 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

So weird that a thread about a political issue has turned into a battle for the last word. The "silly and/or shameful" count is growing rapidly!

I tried to end it numerous times actually.  I agree with you.  It is silly and shameful that it kept going.  oh well!

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:53 PM, Mark H. said:

The Supreme Court made the decision and awarded the money, not the PM. 

not true Mark.

19 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Seemed to be going well until someone came in making the accusation that anyone offering information that ran contrary to their own views must be getting that info from an alt-right blog.

That seems to happen a lot around here.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/08/trudeau-keen-to-help-khadr-not-him-afghan-refugee

42 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

not true Mark.

There would have no award without the issue first being appealed in court. The government made an out of court settlement instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's final judgement.  

Just now, Mark H. said:

There would have no award without the issue first being appealed in court. The government made an out of court settlement instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's final judgement.  

In other words, they deliberately skirted the judicial system in order to take matters into their own hands.

Just now, Atomic said:

In other words, they deliberately skirted the judicial system in order to take matters into their own hands.

exactly

1 minute ago, Mark H. said:

There would have no award without the issue first being appealed in court. The government made an out of court settlement instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's final judgement.  

Fair enough, but what you wrote was wrong.  The Supreme Court didn't award any money.  They didn't get the chance.  The taxpayers didn't even get their day in court.  And it was all done secretively, just like Justin's vacation with the Aga Khan.  So much for open and transparent, not like anyone believed that blarney anyway.

1 minute ago, Atomic said:

In other words, they deliberately skirted the judicial system in order to take matters into their own hands.

 

1 minute ago, kelownabomberfan said:

exactly

Almost all civil cases are settled out of court.  

Just now, Mark H. said:

Almost all civil cases are settled out of court.  

Does this strike you as a typical civil case?

1 minute ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Fair enough, but what you wrote was wrong.  The Supreme Court didn't award any money.  They didn't get the chance.  The taxpayers didn't even get their day in court.  And it was all done secretively, just like Justin's vacation with the Aga Khan.  So much for open and transparent, not like anyone believed that blarney anyway.

I think I've explained often enough why I wrote what I did.

Just now, Mark H. said:

I think I've explained often enough why I wrote what I did.

and it was still wrong.

4 minutes ago, Atomic said:

In other words, they deliberately skirted the judicial system in order to take matters into their own hands.

Wasn't the appeal by the feds in 2008 easily shot down by the SCoC? Seems like it would've been a losing battle to keep trying to appeal, not to mention prohibitively costly.

2 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Does this strike you as a typical civil case?

 

2 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Does this strike you as a typical civil case?

Not at all.  Given the charter rights that were breached, I think he would've been awarded more than $10 million.  And the government would more than likely have been on the hook for his legal expenses. 

A civil case between two individuals or an individual and a corporation is very different.  This involves the taxpayers.  One could argue the government had the duty to minimize the damages by settling.  But one could also argue they had a duty to see it through and fight for a victory.  And of course, they could have stalled in an attempt to let the widow try to have her US judgement certified in Canada so she's get the money.

The government made the decision to MAKE SURE a convicted terrorist got paid and they made sure a widow of a murder victim had no chance at the money.  What's next, will they hide some of OJ's assets too?