eyeball Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 16 minutes ago, jacee said: Omar Khadr "defected to AlQuaida" ... at 10 years of age???!!! "He should not be entitled to the full protection of Canada’s charter of rights and freedoms." Every Canadian, guilty or innocent, at home or abroad, is entitled to best efforts to uphold their Charter Rights. Where does the Sun find these stupid people to write such stupid stuff?? Well, he probably had a little peach fuzz on his upper lip by age ten so he was clearly an adult. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 40 minutes ago, eyeball said: Chretien and the Liberals are as right-wing as any Conservative, as equally evidenced by their focus on the distribution of power. All I can say to that one is - Toto - I'm not in Kansas anymore 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 (edited) Try applying the post French revolutionary definition to the term right wing. If you people can reach as far back as the 4th century to justify your positions when it comes to people like Khadr then I can reach back as recently as the 17th when it comes to justifying mine. Edited July 8, 2017 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 2 hours ago, jacee said: Trudeau is just doing what the GoC is ordered to do by the courts. You are factually incorrect. Neither Trudeau nor the GoC were ordered to make any monetary award by any court. In fact this matter was still before the courts in a civil suit and no determination of damages, if any had yet been made. This was purely a Liberal decision and they've publicly stated that to be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 13 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: You are factually incorrect. Neither Trudeau nor the GoC were ordered to make any monetary award by any court. In fact this matter was still before the courts in a civil suit and no determination of damages, if any had yet been made. This was purely a Liberal decision and they've publicly stated that to be the case. Exactly, there is a huge difference between being "ordered" to do something and "willingly offering" to do something - you'd think this would be obvious common sense. The gov't should have fought it to the very end and if they lost, pay up the money and tell Khadr to stick the apology up his ass. At least there is some dignity in that, at least the armed forces would know that the government doesn't kiss ass to terrorists. I could be more ashamed of our Prime Minister right now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 On 7/6/2017 at 8:57 AM, jacee said: Because ... Harper. BS, he was caught under Chretien's watch, it was Chretien's government in power when members of CSIS went to interrogate him. Chretien did nothing at all. After Chretien the situation was inherited by Martin, who also did squat about it. Under Harper the terrorist POS was repatriated to Canada. So in your world of alternate reality the guy who had him repatriated is the creep but the Liberals who did jack are the good guys? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: BS, he was caught under Chretien's watch, it was Chretien's government in power when members of CSIS went to interrogate him. Chretien did nothing at all. After Chretien the situation was inherited by Martin, who also did squat about it. Under Harper the terrorist POS was repatriated to Canada. So in your world of alternate reality the guy who had him repatriated is the creep but the Liberals who did jack are the good guys? Harper was a full supporter of the US/UK war crimes and terrorism. He is a war criminal himself, having taken part in the illegal invasion of Afghanistan and providing support for the Iraq illegal invasion. Though he later said the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Clear, unequivocal proof of their being war criminals. Why don't these war criminals go to jail? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 14 minutes ago, hot enough said: Harper was a full supporter of the US/UK war crimes and terrorism. He is a war criminal himself, having taken part in the illegal invasion of Afghanistan and providing support for the Iraq illegal invasion. Though he later said the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Clear, unequivocal proof of their being war criminals. Why don't these war criminals go to jail? Probably because it was Chretien who sent us into Afghanistan, not Harper. Probably also because the Afghanistan mission was a UN and NATO approved mission, therefore by any meaningfull or realistic standard was not illegal as you falsely claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 57 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: You are factually incorrect. Neither Trudeau nor the GoC were ordered to make any monetary award by any court. In fact this matter was still before the courts in a civil suit and no determination of damages, if any had yet been made. This was purely a Liberal decision and they've publicly stated that to be the case. The gov was already found to have violated Khadr's rights. Courts do encourage parties to come to agreement out of court. But you're right, the Libs could have refused to do so. Then the court would have imposed a settlement, possibly for the full $20m + court costs. Then you'd be yelling at them because they didn't try to settle it for less! Some people just like to complain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 9 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: Probably because it was Chretien who sent us into Afghanistan, not Harper. Probably also because the Afghanistan mission was a UN and NATO approved mission, therefore by any meaningfull or realistic standard was not illegal as you falsely claim. Chretien is also a war criminal, just like Harper. There was no UN approval for either Iraq or Afghanistan. You defend the equivalent of the war crimes of the Nazis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Just now, jacee said: The gov was already found to have violated Khadr's rights. Courts do encourage parties to come to agreement out of court. But you're right, the Libs could have refused to do so. Then the court would have imposed a settlement, possibly for the full $20m + court costs. Then you'd be yelling at them because they didn't try to settle it for less! Some people just like to complain. You are making assumptions and you know what they say about that. In this case you are once again incorrect, that's sort of habitual with you isn't it. In fact even if they had lost I would not have liked it but I would have applauded their effort to do the right thing. The right thing being to not reward terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, hot enough said: Chretien is also a war criminal, just like Harper. There was no UN approval for either Iraq or Afghanistan. You defend the equivalent of the war crimes of the Nazis. Really, what was this then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Assistance_Mission_in_Afghanistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: You are making assumptions and you know what they say about that. In this case you are once again incorrect, that's sort of habitual with you isn't it. In fact even if they had lost I would not have liked it but I would have applauded their effort to do the right thing. The right thing being to not reward terrorists. ??? The gov was already found liable. So they knew they were going to lose this lawsuit. But you think the Libs should have let the court decide the payout, even if it ended up being double what they were able to negotiate? That's baloney. You'd be screaming that they should have settled. I have no time for your petty partisan nonsense. Edited July 8, 2017 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: Really, what was this then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Assistance_Mission_in_Afghanistan You guys know zilch about the things you try to discuss. There is no, that is ZERO evidence in your little scramble, Angus. Pathetic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 16 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: You are making assumptions and you know what they say about that. In this case you are once again incorrect, that's sort of habitual with you isn't it. In fact even if they had lost I would not have liked it but I would have applauded their effort to do the right thing. The right thing being to not reward terrorists. This is a study in total confusion, but I will allow that it is a routine Angus study in total confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, jacee said: ??? The gov was already found liable. So they knew they were going to lose this lawsuit. But you think the Libs should have let the court decide the payout, even if it ended up being double what they were able to negotiate? Yes I do indeed believe they should have fought it, thus sending a strong message that they do not condone the situation that led up to this. It would have been the right thing to do. Instead they did the opposite of the right thing and sent a very unfavorable message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 12 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: You are making assumptions and you know what they say about that. In this case you are once again incorrect, that's sort of habitual with you isn't it. In fact even if they had lost I would not have liked it but I would have applauded their effort to do the right thing. The right thing being to not reward terrorists. I would have to agree with jacee on this for sure. Doing what you call the right thing could very well have cost the taxpayer double, and I would imagine the DoJ lawyers advised the current government of this based on the prior decisions of the SC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: This is a study in total confusion, but I will allow that it is a routine Angus study in total confusion. Whatever, whenever you're shown to be wrong you resort to your usual tactic of obfuscation or denial. As such everything you post is obfuscation and denial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Just now, AngusThermopyle said: Whatever, whenever you're shown to be wrong you resort to your usual tactic of obfuscation or denial. As such everything you post is obfuscation and denial. And I'll agree with you on that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 Just now, Omni said: I would have to agree with jacee on this for sure. Doing what you call the right thing could very well have cost the taxpayer double, and I would imagine the DoJ lawyers advised the current government of this based on the prior decisions of the SC. That is where we differ. I for one do not put a price on doing what is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: Whatever, That's very juvenile, Angus. Quote whenever you're shown to be wrong you resort to your usual tactic of obfuscation or denial. As such everything you post is obfuscation and denial. Stop whining and show your proof that the invasions of Iraq and A were not war crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 9 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: That is where we differ. I for one do not put a price on doing what is right. Then petition the government to pony up with the $20 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hot enough Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 10 minutes ago, Omni said: And I'll agree with you on that. In your normal dishonest manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omni Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said: That is where we differ. I for one do not put a price on doing what is right. You're concluding what is the "right thing" because it suits your opinion, which your right. Others around the table may conclude that he was denied his rights, and for a long time, and therefore has a right to at least some compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulf42 Posted July 8, 2017 Report Share Posted July 8, 2017 (edited) Well just a guess but the Conservatives will probably win a majority by a landslide in 2019. Edited July 8, 2017 by wulf42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.