The Unknown Poster

Yup and no matter how often the Omar apologists repeat it, they cannot make it true. The court also did not tell the government to make the deal in secret and help the terrorist avoid even the slimmest risk of losing the cash to the widow of the real victim in all this. What say the Omar apologists about that?

Its not up to me to introduce shades of grey. In fact, the opposite is true. and no matter how much you or anyone else decides to focus on just me and shout me down to try and turn your opinion into fact, it simply doesnt change anything. He committed crimes that would net him adult prison time in Canada. The judge presiding over his case dismissed the claims of torture. Khadr was caught lying about his mistreatment He admitted to his crimes. Canada's obligation (the one the court say they shirked) was to repatriate him back to Canada. They did so eventually. No one has argued that being housed in Cuba was a great idea or that the US treated their war prisoners wonderfully. No one has said that at all. But you people trying to bend over backwards to defend this payout cant bring yourselves to condemn the actions of Khadr. Why is that?

Took me slightly longer than 3 seconds but Ill assume you're man enough to apologize. http://globalnews.ca/news/1998973/is-omar-khadr-a-child-soldier-explaining-the-murky-debate/ Nutt said there’s no denying that Khadr committed the crimes, EDIT: and thats an article that is critical of Canada for abandoning him so you can apologize on that front too. Ill wait while you do it...

For a guy dropping in to insult and be snarky and make demands you sure arent providing many links yourself. Perhaps spend more than 3 seconds looking things up. I dont have to do your homework for you. But here's a question, is your position that the soldier deserved it or that Khadr never did anything wrong? because for all those in here defending this payout, there is a real lack of condemnation for the actions of the terrorist.

Most of this is wrong. Government provided the settlement not the court. US judge rejected claims do torture. Khadr was proven to have lied about his treatment. Dont cherry pick which parts of the law you want to believe. Many cases of someone being found to have committed a murder years earlier who led a great life. Doesn't excuse the act. The sick truth is many people simply believe America deserves it. So they are twisting themselves up to excuse the acts of a murderer. In Canada you can be tried as an adult. Why is this case different? Because he spent time in Cuba? Being deprived of sleep? Poor him.

Actually read a quote of hers. Did I sit in the room and hear her say it? No. Did a read an actual quote? Yes. Grow up.

So what is Kurt Angle's secret? gay? Love child? Continuation of his angle with steph? Sleeping with Dixie carter? Corey Graves got another mysterious text message and went backstage. Angle asked if Graves got the same text message that he did. Angle said he can't let this get out because it could destroy him. Then again, he said he may have to go public over this even if it means losing his family and his career. Angle said he's going to go public next week, even if it could destroy him. Graes said so many people love Angle, he has all the confidence in the world that Angle will be OK. Graves didn't have very much faith in his voice when he said that. Backstage, Angle was on the phone with someone. Angle told the person "I totally understand. Stop thinkig that way. Why don't you come here next week and we'll both do it together? Neither one of us have anything to be ashamed of. I'm proud of you and I hope you feel the same way about me. So why don't you come here next week and we'll tell the whole world together. And whatever happens, happens. I love you." Angle had a grim look on his face as he hung up.

Tanev is a cheap depth player who still has upside. Good deal. No commitment.

A lot of chatter from people online about Del Rio being an abuser. In this particular case it sounds like Paige threw a drink at Alberto, although there are no details as to what precipitated it. But she repeatedly says she's been trying to get away from him. She tweeted out an immediate cover story. A couple of years ago there was a very odd incident in Las Vegas with photos of Paige being detained by police. All police would say was that she was detained for medical reasons after running out into traffic but the story was she was running from him. Then Del Rio was stabbed mysteriously and gave several different cover stories. A gossip site stated that he was stabbed by Paige's drug dealer because she was behind on payments (and implied she was a courier too). The long standing rumour was Paige stabbed him. Its referred to by many as an "open secret". WWE actively tried to break the two of them up, which is obviously a weird thing for a company to do. And internet detectives have noticed a correlation between reported incidents between the two and the appearance of bruises on Paige's arms in photos. Who knows. But I strongly suspect this isn't the end of the story.

I assumed the no right turn on Pembina from Chancellor Matheson was to cut down on the amount of traffic going south on Pembina. Doesnt sound like it helped much. Were many people taking the parking lots? You could get from Markham all the way to Chancellor Drive (practically at Bishop) driving through parking lots (which would be fairly empty after the game).

I agree. People getting caught up in the details of whether the grenade left his hand are missing the point and it doesnt really matter either way.

I did read it. I've read a lot on this. I was just pointing out that any article that posits the position "what if we're wrong", well, they've undermined every criminal conviction in history.

Im sure the LA Kings will revolutionize the NHL.

Its entitled "what if he's innocent". Cant we apply that to literally anyone who is convicted of a crime? At what point do we simply let everyone go? Im usually more of a bleeding heart when it comes to this stuff. But not in this case. Too much evidence to support the fact he was a terrorist making IED's and was engaged in that fight where the soldier was killed. He admitted it. He lied about his treatment by the Americans. Canada's duty was to bring him back (and we can hope that he had been charged here as well). The real victim is that soldier who was killed and his family. What do they get? I think this issue has been clouded by the anti-American crowd and the Muslim Extremist apologists. Remember after the Boston Bombing, Trudeau said we (as in the ones the bombers hated and wished dead) should think about what we did to make them kill us. It was our fault. We're the bad guys. Trudeaus answer is to apologize for making someone hate us and give them a cheque.

You'll have to provide a definition of torture. Because "sleep deprivation" is not likely to be considered torture by many Canadians looking at this case. However, opinion aside, I was referencing the facts of the case where the US judge rejected the claims of torture. He further rejected claims that Khadr was coerced into a confession. And in one instance, Khadr claimed he was mis treated during a specific time but unfortunately for him, that incident was video taped and nothing he said took place. He lied. I guess we could give an admitted killer and bomb maker, proven liar and terrorist and a guy who even the child solider lobby agrees is absolutely guilty, the benefit of the doubt but why?

That's really the contentious issue. And I think it resonates with a lot of people. if you're going on 16 years old and kill someone in Canada or the US you can be tried as an adult. Even tried as a child there is a strong desire by many to put more emphasis on consequences than sometimes happens. It seems Canada felt that his actions, which he admitted were enough to treat him like you'd treat a non-terrorist accused of a similar crime - as an adult which is difficult to argue with. What's interesting, the head of War Child, which I guess is a lobby group that tries to stop children being used as soldiers, while being critical of Canada acknowledged that there is no doubt Khadr is guilty. So when you take on face value that at nearly 16 years old, this guy was making bombs with the intent of killing soldiers, engaged in fire fights and killed a soldier while maiming another, its difficult for a lot of people to say he should get off, even if technically he's to be classified as a "child" and given a pass. Is what he did less heinous than a regular Canadian 15 year old committing a well thought out crime of murder? Even you accept that he paid his debt by being kept in Cuba by the US, why are we apologizing and giving him money. For some, an apology on behalf of all Canadians is the most disgusting aspect. For others, giving a terrorist $10 million dollars, a guy who is from a terrorist family which has financed terror activities in the past, is outrageous and complicit. And when you consider the government seemingly aided this convicted murderer in keeping his money away from the widow of the man he killed, its really really distasteful. And the only argument in favour of cuddling the terrorist seems to be "well, the supreme court says so". Be that as it may, the Supreme Court got it wrong. And either way, surely the intent of the Charter was not to coddle, reward and assist murders and become complicit in the potential funding of terrorist activity. Canada just donated $10 million to a terrorist with ties to organizing terror financing.

Her husband was killed when Khadr threw a grenade. He plead guilty, admitted he did it. She sued for compensation and won a judgement. Probably a moral victory since she'd have to try to enforce it and, as we all know, this wonderful man is Canadian. But what many people find troubling is, even though the widow's efforts to enforce the judgement here would be slim, the Canadian government appears to have gone out of it's way to help Khadr avoid any issues over his compensation. Satisfying the law is one thing, aiding a known terrorist in funneling funds to who-knows-where is something else entirely.

Didnt they film a brief "concept" trailer with Deathstroke? For fun...if I recall? Remember, the director (Affleck) left the project (he's still staring but not directing or writing) so Deathstroke may not even be in it anymore. Personally, if they are serious about a Nightwing film, Deathstroke should be HIS villain, not Batman's.

Thats actually a good point. I'd find it very difficult to believe that President Hilary would seat Chelsea at that table or give her a Senior Adviser gig. Its more likely Chelsea would be sent to gain experience in another department. She can give her mom all the advice she wants over the dinner table. Its bothering some people because given all the other facts, its just a little too uncomfortable how Trump has elevated his family members in a way that many dictatorship nations do.

Im neither a lawyer or a politician but there seems to be many of those that disagree with this. And yes, I'd respect a government that fought til the bitter end. And I'd respect even more a government that didnt try to keep it a secret so the widow had less of a chance to get involved. Thats the problem with the Khadr apologists - the government wanted this kept quiet. Whether the widow had a good chance or a slim chance isnt the issue, it seems our government assisted a terrorist in ensuring she had NO chance. The government chose the terrorist over the widow of a slain ally. We can argue semantics all day long. The goal posts keep getting moved. He was tortured. Well no he wasnt. He was coerced. Nope. He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nope. He was forced into it. meh. he didnt throw a grenade. Who cares. He's a Canadian. so what. The question I have which is more pressing, if a Canadian citizen leaves Canada and joins a terrorist group and fights on their behalf, does he get to come home and get a job at Burger King like nothing happened? No one here is arguing the Supreme Court ruling didnt happen. The side against this deal acknowledges the points on the other side. it seems those in favour of this deal are avoiding any sort of condemnation of this terrorist.