The Unknown Poster

I never mentioned what the organization believed. Also, he was tried. And plead guilty. Why are you arguing things that have no relevance to this? She agreed there was no doubt he did it. Do you agree with her? You were rude and wrong. Still are. Can't we move on?

If he handed him a stiff suspension and the player appealed and won that is BETTER than the league throwing in the towel without trying. This says that the league does not value the safety of their officials. Letting the PA fight and win says the PA doesnt value the safety of the officials. If the officials did some sort of job action as a result of this, I'd applaud them.

Oh please. You've searched long and hard for a way to avoid simply admitting you were wrong. You certainly never objected to the word guilty until your more recent posts. You accused me of lying and implied that if I found an article where she admitted he did it, that it would be a biased article and I was silly for believing it. I was correct. You were incorrect. Its really that simple. You dont have to apologize for being wrong. That's not in dispute. But you were very rude and jumped to an incorrect conclusion because of your opinion. The best part is, I was quoting an article sympathetic to Khadr and a person sympathetic to him. I literally added to the discussion a person on the other side of the debate. And you still insulted me. Oh well. I dont think you're convincing anyone. So lets just move on.

Good post. Regarding point 1, I think where many people are upset is that there was still some fighting worth doing by the government. There is some aspect of this that doesnt pass the sniff test. The Liberals dropped the previous government's appeal and decided to pay him off and apologize. Its possible they would have lost in court but I think for many Canadians, they'd have rather seen the government Fight and lose than to give in and make it easy. Additionally, the fact it appears the government tried to keep this quiet and assist Khadr in avoiding his obligations to the widow of the US soldier killed is particularly troublesome. Regarding point 2, I think it boils down to whether the use of certain techniques in a military prison setting by the US are negative enough to essentially cancel the original crime. We've seen criminal cases dismissed due to errors or length of time issues in court. In those cases, the letter of the law and the perception of erring on the side of the rights of the accused seem to take priority over the alleged crime. In most cases, I think, most of us would agree with the adage that its better a 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be jailed (and associated aspects of that perspective). But, in saying that, if Khadr was victimized by the US, let him take that up with the US. Point 3, that's tough. Because it opens up a discussion about all crimes and what formed the basis for that criminal intent in the mind of the criminal. Our jails are over flowing with cases of FASD. And certainly many criminals have been negatively impacted by their upbringing and environment. These are worth considering but more so as it relates to sentencing. If someone commits a bad act, they commit a bad act, especially when its with malicious intent (and not, for example, in the heat of passion). I think we're beyond the debate of whether Khadr did it. Not even Khadr claims he didnt do it. Was he influenced to do it by his father? Most certainly. But at his age, he had the capacity to know right from wrong. This wasn't merely a fire fight that he was caught up in. He trained, he created bombs with the intent of those bombs killing people. He was a translator for a terrorist organization. I think we agree these are facts. On point 4, you've created a slant in the statement which could also be written as "young offenders are sometimes tried in adult court" (different slants to the same fact). If a 15 year old in Winnipeg joined a known criminal gang, committed criminal acts, planned acts with the intent of killing and took part in an act that resulted in the death of a police officer, we'd all be demanding he get the book thrown at him. If the courts tried him as an adult, many people would support that. Many more, even if they disagreed, would likely not be particularly outraged. My sense is that people seeing the difference here are being influenced by anti-Americanism and a reaction to Islamaphobia akin to an over-correction when sliding on an icy road. And I say that because most people arguing here have avoided any sort of condemnation for Khadr's actions. Whether the government HAD to pay Khadr is moot. They chose to. So we dont know what the result would have been. had they continued to Fight, they might have lost. They might have had to pay more. Perhaps the widow would have had her judgement made enforceable in Canada and thus, intervened in Khadr's receipt of the money. Who knows. I hope Khadr is sincere in his apologies and his emphatic statements that he is a good person. I hope he is free of the influence of his family and that not one cent finds its way to a terrorist action. I dont think we should execute him. He did his crime and he did his time. But an apology and a pay out....? Thats where I draw the line.

A ONE GAME SUSPENSION??? Wow. This commissioner has failed two days into his term.

I dont disagree with your first line at all. And we can discuss that if you wish. But in the context of the debate about Nutt, it wasn't the discussion. Fraser was free to bring her position into for a wider discussion on child soldier's but he didnt. And the child solider aspect is probably the most relevant aspect of this case as it relates to moral culpability. I didn't deliberately leave out facts to twist a statement. Its as true in this context as it was in the context in which I made the original post that she concedes Khadr did it. And that's an important fact when there are people presenting their opinions that he didnt do it as fact. Not a single person here has argued that Khadr was 18+ at the time. That is a fact not in dispute. Regardless, Fraser's post and his choice not to acknowledge his error have been discussed and we can move on. Its disappointing. I choose to believe if I was wrong, I'd admit it. We cant have a discussion if we cannot admit error. As far as the child solider aspect, I do find it fascinating. This case is complicated. Khadr's parents were vile and clearly abused their son and all of that should be taken into account. One fact no one has brought up that I am intrigued about is actually that the Canadian court ruled that the US court's sentence was meant to be a youth sentence where as Canada treated it as an adult sentence. Khadr was imprisoned upon his return to Canada. The Conservatives appealed a decision that granted Khadr bail conditions but the liberals dropped the appeal.

This has to be one of the more subtle and bizarre Easter eggs in films: He played "Punk on Street" in Spider Man and "Punk on Bus" in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home where he also had a boom box that annoyed Captain Kirk.

I dont know either. Im basing this totally off the fact you can waive anyone you want to the Moose before a certain date in EA Sports NHL games.

This family lives a little too much on social media but you can understand their concern:

I meant Lemieux to start with the Moose. I guess we're all in Manitoba lol. I think Lemieux is seen as a potential quality 4th line guy. But if Tanev is getting NHL money, they might have him penciled in there.

I tried. And Ill refrain of really typing what this means... Not factually incorrect whatsoever. Very correct. You're now arguing points that were never made by me. I never said Nutt's position was he was NOT a child solider. Just that she agreed he did it. Do you agree he did it?

Cant they waive him without losing him to begin the season? He might be one of those guys paid a lot of money to play in the AHL but I'd suspect they see him as that 4th line option. Lemieux to start in Manitoba.

And for the record (because I was told my response was actually more insulting than your insult, somehow), I apologize for mocking your refusal to apologize. I was mostly being funny. if you took offense, I apologize. If I state a "fact" that is incorrect, Ill gladly admit it. That's the point of discussion, to share facts and viewpoints.

No, stop, what is this 5 times now you're doubling down. Just stop. You were wrong. I never remarked about Nutt's position on war crimes. As the head of an organization committed to ending child soliders, as you keep saying, we can assume what her position on that is. As I explained to you, and am doing AGAIN, my point was because there were some claiming Khadr didnt even do anything My point was that it was interesting that even to someone who would be complete on the side of Khadr, his actions were not up for debate. He did it. So I was accurate. And it was interesting. You only find it interesting when it supports your position. And you implied that I only read "alt right" articles that one would be silly to believe when in fact, I was CLEARLY reading an article that took an opposing view point because I wanted to read all sides. Try that sometime. You're not going to apologize and that's fine. It hurts your own credibility more so than simply admitting you misunderstood and were wrong. So let's agree to agree you were wrong and move on if you cant be adult enough to actually apologize. Deal?

The Supreme Court, if I understand correctly, did not rule on whether he was "tortured". Their ruling concerned the interrogation by Canadian officials which violated section 7 of the charter concerning life, liberty and security. In effect, what Canada did wrong was not help Khadr. They interrogated him, without counsel, in an effort to get information to turn over to the American's. The US judge (and I believe there were several hearings and potentially multiple judges), ruled he was not tortured and his confession was not coerced. Keep in mind, Khadr at one point fired his defense team and was going to represent himself. He accepted a defense attorney who had been working on a plea that would repatriate Khadr to Canada. The Supreme Court did not rule that Canada had to repatriate him. They left that up to the government. They simply ruled Canada violated Khadr's rights pertaining to section 7. The Omar apologists are twisting things here. The remark about cherry picking is embracing legal decisions that support your position while ignoring those that dont. I accept the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. I dont call it a sham. None of that changes the actions of Omar Khadr which many of you refuse to condemn.

No that is absolutely incorrect. You lurked in a discussion looking for an entry point to swing in, chest puffed out, no doubt a smirk on your face and you got it wrong. You now admit your behavior and still won't apologize for it. We don't have to agree. Ive conceded enough on this point because its not about digging heels in and being right, its about an honest discussion. You're immature and can't admit you were wrong. We can even split the difference. You can be adult enough to admit you misunderstood and just apologize for being insulting rather then simply asking in a mature manner. Ill wait...

its easier if you just apologize. Your post was terribly insulting and snarky and you know it. be an adult. Apologize. What is it called when you double down four times?

tripling down. hahahahahaha When you cant simply offer a meaningful apology for being wrong, it completely exposes you. Very sad. Do you condemn Khadr's actions or just try to play semantics with people that do?

hahaha this is so true! What she thinks MATTERS..oh wait, what, she said that, so, it doesnt matter...lol And he then hedges on what Khadr did. "I didnt say he didnt do anything". What a condemnation.

Okay so you're doubling down on not apologizing for your insulting and snarky post directed at me. Okay, just making sure. I made a post that was wholly accurate. You insulted me, implied I was lying and even if I had a quote it must be a "right" article and Im silly to believe it. I post the link to an article that was actually critical of Canada which included the statement proving I was accurate and you refuse to simply admit you were wrong and apologize for it. I like honest disagreements and discussion but you have no credibility here now. Thank you.

And whats the reasoning, that most of those jobs are just part time workers who arent relying on the income to support themselves?

Oh and I get it, the court you disagree with is a sham. The one you agree with is not. I see. Makes sense. Do you support the actions of Omar Khadr?

Ummmm so you're not man enough to apologize? You're the one who took exception to her quote, why act like it's not interesting now? She said there was no doubt he committed the crimes. Or does committing crimes not imply guilt? Are you making that distinction? lol The relevance was that some people here were arguing there was no evidence he even did it. My point was that one of the people so strongly critical of Canada even admitted that his actions weren't in question. So...you can come here and insult be snarky but you can't admit you were wrong? Okay.

Im quite certain we will be disappointed. The Steph thing is the best idea but the reason that angle was dropped so long ago is because Hunter insisted that his "character" was not one that would ever be cheated on. And they are far more concerned about how they are portrayed now so I really cannot see Steph & Hunter going for it. There was an angle where Steph was arrested (I think it was her feud with Brie Bella) and the next week on RAW, they were going to post a made up mugshot and someone nixed it saying that the mugshot would be on the internet forever and Steph's kids could google it. Mind boggling.