The only place I heard of it was Fox… which of course may be a little dubious…

The reporting now is very much trending towards US origin and non-terrorist. Where are you seeing originated in Canada?

Can they trade him for future considerations and a puck bag?

There is still time.

So do the Oilers fire Knoblauch after the second? Team seems to have given up on him.

We will see as the facts roll out!

Wasn’t the attack in the US?

I’m not unsold on a si roll.

That being said I don’t think the goaltending is one of the reasons they lost tonight. It also isn’t a reason that they could have won, if that makes any sense.

So I might be losing it, but I’m not blaming tonight (so far) on the Oilers goaltending. Sure it hasn’t saved them tonight, but the defence is just giving too much away.

Im unarmed, but surely I can use the advantage of evolution to outsmart animals and use the environment? Create dead falls, drowning traps, trick them off of cliffs, etc?

Oh my. Please continue this thread.

Lolz. I’m not taking that too seriously. But the GM has handcuffed them so bad on salary that they can’t get the most attractive talent, that’s for sure.

Im not certain Kane is a significant part of the problem in Edmonton, although to be fair right now basically everyone is part of the problem.

Very enlightened, eh? No doot aboot it.

Dude. I’m not justifying anything other than being accurate. If you want to contribute to lies/mis/dis/information feel free to do so. You have every right to do. I’m not defending anyone’s actions here, so please feel free to reread my comments.

Such discussions also serve to focus on whether prosecutions need to occur/should occur/could occur. This can be important for condemnation of participants, and for defining relationships between states going forward.

Which is fine - but then people shoulnb’t dress up their arguments in the language related to legality. Doing so contributes to mis/disinformation. Targeting civilians is unlawful. Targeting a lawful target in a crowd may be lawful but abhorrent. Talking about civilians being targeted is misleading.

Or did you mean the US example? In which case the OP words are only important for the overall framing of this thread.

Other than the OP said that one would be targeting civilians, I’d agree. That is a description of legal import & that is not what they are doing (based on the OP description). As well others are using descriptors like war crime and genocide. Language accuracy matters - it stops mis/disinformation.

You might. It’s a policy choice, not a question of what is lawful or not.

Perhaps. That’s a policy argument, not a lawfulness argument.

It’s highly probable that in a nuclear war the base would have been targeted, resulting in many, many civilian deaths. The target would have been lawful.

It took me about 2-3 weeks from deleting app to nuking the account.

The problem is that anyone billing themself as a lawyer who speaks Carrie’s the weight of the responsibility of the profession on their backs. As a law student you can probably do whatever you want. And it probably won’t matter. Anyways, that’s enough for tonight.

I don’t know what to tell you. Not everyone needs to be part of every conversation. Sometimes listening and lending support in other ways can be meaningful. But if you decide to mislead people either intentionally, or through willful blindness, you aren’t helping anyone.

Of course they don’t have to. We all get to decide what kind of professional we want to be, and whether we want to make the profession a little better, or a little worse, with our actions.

100%. Those in the legal profession probably shouldn’t contribute to that. That common usage leads people to think what is going on is a crime - and it isnt clear it is. Use immoral etc lingo if one must - but if lawyers refer to things as crime it destroys confidence in rule of law if it isn’t.

Sometimes we might think that other lawyer aren’t playing by the rules. And it’s possible they aren’t. But that tends to catch up to folks, as many of Trumps former lawyers are finding out.

And none of that is of course to suggest that if Hamas, or Palestine, etc, is your client you shouldn’t try to order your client’s case. Just that they should do that within the bounds of the law and their professional obligations.