Rue

What does untrue mean? If you are asking was his confession false- I can't answer. His lawyer claimed it was false only on the last day of his hearing and refused to allow him to be cross examined so based on the tactics his lawyer used and in the absence of his being cross examined the answer you want can't properly be provided. Your question supposes there is sufficient evidence to determine an answer simply from second hand evidence his lawyer provided which is a crock. You want to pose questions and pretend you are a legal counsel now? Lol. Go for it. Gawd damn there is no shortage of lawyer wannabeez on this forum pretending to cross examine their foes. You guys are a hoot with the puffed demands. Lol. Last chance at a benefit of doubt. How legal and tolerant of you to provide him such a chance. Lol. Hey, how about I have you one last chance to stop making me laugh at your last chance ultimatums. Last chance. Lol. Look I am sure Cap pissed himself reading that but I know I blew a kidney. Stop. I only have one left.

How will his selective amnesia suddenly lift? Can you get real just once.

No that is again a total and compete lie. The case as to the doctrine of clean hands and public morality and whether they should have been applied to reduce any amount given to Kadr to a nominal amount was never put to the court. Stop mispresenting as if it has. No amount of dishonest spinning will change the fact Trudeau deliberately avoided making his reference. You can repeat the above 1000 times it does not make it a fact. Enough.

First did you make a spelling mistake? Oh me oh my. Imagine you doing that. I thought only moi did. See we do have so much in common. Next, I disagree with how the charter is applied. I don't speak for other critics. I think the reasoning that it be applied as widely as possible has created a pendelum that has swung so far from its original intent to now threaten its very purpose. Whether s.1 will ever be used to swing the pendelum away from an extreme in wide application remains to be seen. I don't see such decisions in this generation. That said, I did have the luxury of taking a graduate course in constitutional law at Osgoode Hall when I did my Master's, It's a bizarre area of law full of baffle gab. What I found fascinating though was Prof. Hogg who assisted Trudeau and drafted much of the Charter. He spoke candidly to me while we were eating dinner and said neither he nor Trudeau had envisioned the Charter being used as it was in criminal law. They only envisioned it as a way to protect equality rights of French, natives, gays. He said the Charter has taken on a life of its own because of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision to interpret it as widely as possible. I found that very interesting and its why I say to you without partisan bias, I think the Charter is not the problem, sometimes its wide application may be questionable. Charters, constitutions are essential components of democracy and to be safeguards for democratic processes they have to have teeth and be enforced. I would not argue against that, of course not if that is your point. You are right, constitutions that are not enforced become jokes like the one in Russia which sounds fantastic when you read it. The point is its far to say what you do that a constitution with teeth protects a democracy but it can at times undermine it if it goes too far. So far it has not. The Supreme Court of Canada's interpretation of violations at Kadr in regards to fundamental rules of Justice as no different than the US Constitution finding it so as well as the Australian and British high courts. That's not the issue. The Charter was violated for Kadr. It entitled him to return and release-the other issue whether he should be financially compensated personally (other than being released and his legal bill paid) was never brought to the Supreme Court of Canada to reference and interpret. It remains unknown. As long as its not referenced TRudea's refusal to reference it lends to the appearance terrorists as long as they are Canadian can personally gain financially if their charter rights are violated. That violates our most fundamental of legal doctrines that wrong doing can never lead to personal financial reward. The only criminals who have been compensated were in fact proven not to have ever engaged in the actions leading to their arrest. You've failed to grasp that difference. You feel the procedural violations of the Charter magically undo the actions that led to Kadr's detention. They do not. They were wrong actions whether he was brainwashed, a child, fully knew what he did, had no understanding fo what he did. Terrorism doesn't cease being terrorism based in a legal procedural error, it only allows a technical defence to prevent detention. That was and has always been the law until Trudeau for political reasons avoid the public morality and dirty hands doctrine references. Those references stand side by side the charter. The Charter has no section that extinguishes them and I think had they been referenced the courts would have set the government's wrong doing could be addressed, remedied and acknowledged in ways OTHER than giving Kadr personally, money. The pay off I believe creates a bad precedent that undermines all our laws and the Charter until such a reference is done. I know you disagree. I am stating this because people trained as lawyers see the law as a balancing act not a partisan political act. We weigh all the issues not just select the ones that suit our political agenda. I politically despise everything Kadr is and stands for. I do understand why the law releases him from detention, It did so as a balancing act so in the future innocent people do not have their rights violated. However where we differ is I don't stop there and pretend the issue dies there. I see that as only one of the issues to be addressed the other being to ask when does someone whose rights are violated get pecuniary awards. Using your logic a drunk driver who kills someone and gets off on a technicality, i.e., the court waited too long to try him even though the blood test shows he was way over the limit, should be able to get financial compensation. I disagree.

If you are going to pull that ridiculous comment our your asp then wear it....maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia or Iran and tell everyone you are a Jewish feminist gay trade unionist-even better still, go live with Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Intifada. Lol I give you 30 seconds before you call Mama crying an asking to come home.

More political partisan crap. My definition is straight from the bloody dictionary yours is not. Do me a favour as well, I appreciate you need to have the world laid out in simple black and white simplistic terms for you but get this crystal clear-the fact that I believe Jews have a right to a political collective state does not mean I am anti Muslim. Provide the words or rreferences where I was anti Muslim. Go on. Every time I have asked for proof not one of you who accuses me of being anti Muslim can find a damn word that says I am - go on, provide the words. The West did not create Islamic extremism. It existed thousands of years before we existed. The fact you don't understand this and think it was la la land in the Muslim world prior to the Western nations coming about and needing oil simply reflects your ignorance of Muslim history and selective bias that not only absolves Kadr of any responsibility for being a terrorist but any Muslims not just from being terrorists but extremists. That is a crock of crap. Now you want to ask who is making money selling arms in Syria, go ask Russia, China or are you so oblivious to their role in propping Assad? No the purpose of inciting "violent" terrorism (all terrorism is inherently and neccessarily violent, your comment is as idiotic as stating "fatal murder") isn't greed-its because individuals or groups of individuals believe their beliefs should be imposed in such a manner. This selective fantasy you have that someone must be greedy is assinine. Hezbollah is full of terrorists who live materially modest lives. They are far from greedy. Terrorism most certainly exists with or without greed. No tall terrorists are motivated by greed. Many are fueled by altruistic beliefs and idealism. You make sweeping generalizations to suit your selective take on blaming the West for being terrorist and absolving anyone else from terrorism. Its why I contend you have zero credibility and live in a bubble so removed from reality as to defy basic common sense. La La Leftism is I suppose the best way to describe your fantasy script where terrorists are only so if they are big bad Western capitalists. Tell me are you Muslim? Do you subscribe to the kind of Islam that fuels Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas? Go on have the integrity to say so. This blame game you play in scapegoating the West for terrorists does that include you or are you immune from it?

Thank you for illustrating my point. You use this wide ambiguous definition that throws in disjointed subjective personal biases you have that you project as qualities of a so called terrorist but your definition does not define terrorist or terror. Your definition is nonsensical and illogical. Plenty of people propagate hatred against particular peoples but it doen't make them a terrorist. Plenty of people divide and conquer others, its a basic Machiavellian principle we see in all institutions and taught as a management technique in business schools-doesn't make it terrorist. Greedy people making money doesn't make them terrorist. You throw out your subjective feelings and call them terrorist. It renders your discussions on terrorism farsical. Terorism was never intended to cater to your subjective peoples about greed or behaviour. It is a definition that simply states it is an individual or group of individuals who reject any or all laws but their own and believe only their rights are legitimate AND then that this gives them the further right to engage in violence, murder, crime, acts that cause people to react with negative behaviour such as fear and anger, to be able to impose their beliefs. That's all it was meant to mean. Those who fit the above definition but do NOT impose themselves on others are not yet terrorists. Until they put into action their plans to be violent, murderous, they have not yet engaged in actual terrorism but in our laws planning terrorism is considered as serious as physically carrying it out. Planning it or conspiring to do it activates the terror definition. A person who has violent views until he or she can be shown to be planning to carry them out is not technically yet a terrorist. That's how the law works domestically. Internationally there is no definition yet of a terrorist.

In regards to your first comment, his father in fact never sent him. Someone else did. His father sent him to a terrorist training camp. In regards to your second comment, when he was captured he was not in the care of another man, you fabricated that. You also fabricate the other man through the grenade because your bias can not allow you to think of Kadr as a terrorist murderer-in your fantasy world he was just sitting doing nothing. In regards to this second comment you also fabricated the other terrorist he was with was a friend of his father's. You have no evidence to that fact. You assume becaue Kadr;s father was an Al Quaeda terrorist every other terrorist was a friend of his. This is a naïve stereotype you create where you think Al Quaeda terrorists are one cohesive unit of friends. In fact they are as likely to kill one another as they are the "infidel". That you have no clue about because you don't have a clue how terrorists operate. Terrorists work in cells. Loosely knit cells where they are not comrade but men brought together with different emotional and intellectual levels and ideologies whose sole thing in common is they are both angry. Terror cells are packs with an Alpha male and usually range from 4 to 5 to maybe 30. Each alpha male or cell leader reports to a contact or handler. The handler does not tell them about other cells so if they are caught they can't be tortured into explaining what the other cells are doing. There is actually little if any contact between cells and when there is it usually breaks down as competing cell leaders get into battles as to who is in charge. You say as well he did what his father told him. Sure in your fantasy world if he never had an independent though it makes him a sweet innocent angel in your eyes which you badly need to believe in. The other alternative, that he did not always do what his father told him, in fact he did what he himself chose and that was violence, would blow the crap out of your fantasy scenario. You then fabricate some story about his brother. Again the script supports your fantasy that his brother as well only operated based on fear of his father, never on his own accord. The alternative, that the brother acted not just based on his father's beliefs, but his own petrifies you into a complete denial. Your last sentence is meaningless. The entire world could use that rationalization to avoid any responsibility for what they did. You present convenient, simplistic, pat formulas for complex behaviour-it makes the world safe for you. In your world there is no one who actually engages in evil things, they are simply evil because they are trying their best to survive. What an insult to people who have had to survive after choosing not to do what they were told because they knew it was wrong. Yah I know in your world, children, youth, they are morons. They simply do what they are told. None of them think for themselves. What patronizing crap.

Actually if the public knew how Bernardo lives they would be up in arms. He in fact lives in a very nice self contained apartment with a large screen t.v. He does not live in the tiny cell people thing he does. The people on this forum pissing on GBay have no idea what its facilities provided either. They assume because they read an internet article that said he was woken every 3 hours, at one point to be interrogated, this automatically made the GBay facilities evil. The actual physical facilities were in total conformity to the 3rd Geneva Convention at all times and in fact impeccably clean. There isn't a damn prisoner anywhere in the Middle East who is remotely treated the way prisoners in G bay were. What Kadr claims was torture, is a routine practice of interrogation used by police across the world and in Canada and the US. If it constitutes torture then using that reasoning we should be paying hundreds of thousands of people financial compensation for being cross examined while they were tired or because they cried. There's a reason Kadr's lawyers wouldn't allow him to testify about his alleged torture. It would have revealed his crying, his emotional stress was not caused by torture but the awareness no one was coming to save him. His feelings of immortality were shattered. That's got nothing to do with torture and everything to do with someone who realizes he aint the tough guy he thought he was. Prisons do that. Try explain that to people who have never been out of Mama's basement.

Lol I agree with thou.

Bull rap. You contended the exact opposite to AG precipitating the 3 Stooges routine. Regards, Groucho

You use the word violent terrorist to mean what exactly do you even know? Other then to accuse the US or Canada of it do you even know what it means?

Lol that script. Appy to the CBC or Rolling Stone Magazine. Go get em Che.

The fact that you have 3 individuals who can't comprehend why the judiciary remains distinct and separate from the government of the day should tell you what you are dealing with. Now I know why Napoleon's hemmeroids kept him from the field of battle.

You are as usual ignorant of the law. The court and legal system remains distinct and separate from the legislature and civil service and are above and beyond their reach. I do note there is an echo. I change my analogy from Laurel and Hardy to the 3 Stooges.

Do you take joy in advertising your ignorance? Good God man what school did you go to where you have no clue the judicial system is distinct from our government. We have two branches in government, the legislature, and the civil service that are connected. The judiciary is not considered part of the government. It has to remain distinct so as not to be influenced by political consideration. That is what Army Guy referred to and you clearly can't grasp. Then again given your knowledge of steel its not a surprise.

Good God are you really that dense? Do better then to quote a text you don't understand. No the courts separated and made distinct from he government (civil service, legislature) so they are not influenced by the political decisions of the legislature of the day. I

Just when I think you can't sink any lower with the Jew comments, you prove me wrong. Lol. To be clear what you noq have chosen to engage in with your responses to me when I challenged you for parsing and using this thread as an exercise to smeer all Israelis, has a name, its called perpetrator inversion: http://www.timesofisrael.com/european-anti-semites-increasingly-playing-victim-in-classic-perpetrator-inversion-says-expert/ or http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Driven-by-hatred-481755 I would argue your continuing responses engage in playing the role of victim in an attempt to divert attention away from your parsing and slur against all Israelis by: 1- attacking me as an illegitimate Jew, i.e., as you stated: "you don't represent all Isrealis (sic), or all Jews"; 2-trying to solicit sympathy from Argus, i.e., as you stated: "The only responses I see that are worth responding to in this thread are from Argus. I don't see eye to eye with him often, but the replies are at least civil. I mean the way to debate is to debate the information in the articles."' 3-accusing Michael Harder of victimizing you, i.e., you stated: "SO good job on derailing the thread all with the help of our forum 'facilitator' Mike H."; 4-seeking sympathy from an imagined audience on the anti semite threat also playing victim there for what you did and being challenged on it. Interestingly in regards to 2 above, nowhere in your repeat responses thave you discussed the actual issue you claimed you raised, whether terrorist simulation camps have moral issues. Furtjer your title of the thread made that clear-your actual intent was to call all Israelis out as bloodthirsty using the existence of these camps as justification to do so and shows what you claim was the issue you were discussing and the actual agenda you were pursuing were two different things., I would argue your continuing exercise of claiming to do one thing but actually engaging in the very thing you deny demonstrates cognitive dissonance, i.e., you simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values as a direct consequence of being confronted with information that contradicted what you claimed was your intent and purpose as well as your alleged beliefs, ideals, and values, specifically that you try play moral Judge against all Israelis while acting dishonestly through parsing and bigoted stereotyping of Israelis and then avoiding and deflecting from the very dishonest actions you engaged in. I would argue you continue to avoid admitting what you did and instead trying to divert away from what you did with this victim role. I would argue ironically by choosing to play victim over and over to avoid accepting responsibility for what you did you amplify your victim role rendering it more and more absurd. I would argue the pith and substance of your victim role defense as seen on this and the anti semite thread necessarily suggests we targets of your anti-Semitism should never allowed to point to instances when you express anti-Semitism because if we do we are wrongfully playing the “anti-Semitism card” . I suggest that is just you engaging in ter another deflection to justify engaging in and demanding immunity from slurring Israelis and Jews negatively. I would argue your attempt to appeal to a Jewish audience claiming my challenge to your slurs of Israelis being blood thirsty is not something a legitimate Jew would say is a very strange attempt to obtain immunity from criticism or censure by playing not just the victim but personally attacking my Jewishness. That device is also known as good Jew/bad Jew shtick where good Jews like you and agree with you and bad Jews are me or presumably Israeli Jews since they choose to be Israeli and their having to defend themselves against terrorism makes them find terrorism fun. I do seem to remember another poster who used that good Jew bad Kew device and went so far as to suggest he had Jewish friends who were horrified I would defend Israel's right to exist and defend itself. I would argue you manifest arrogance, blatant anti-Semitism and a superiority complex with your words, " you don't represent all Isrealis, or all Jews" because these words manifest a presumption you have the right to raise let alone speak to my legitimacy as a Jew because I challenged you and then to infer to me no Jew or Israeli would defend themselves as to what you said. Your exercise in seeking support for your actions from others on this thread is I would argue an exercise in seeking out other proxy abusers to make you feel better about what you did and also protect you from my challenges

Your constant whining is pathetic. You got caught red handed parsing words to engage in a smeer against all Israelis and you want to resurrect this thread and whine? You think your repeat denials and whining erases what you did? Lol. Your repeat whining and looking for sympathy for what you did is past pathetic. Grow some petunias and take responsibility when you engage in a smeer that blows up in your face. Kaboom,.

You'd be more credible if you came down out of the tree and took the banana out of your orifice when responding.

Your mantra that Israel is an apartheid nation is by inherent nature an attack on Jews for being Israeli. Because you defend the right for Muslim states to be Muslim and impose discriminatory Muslim sharia law on non Muslims states and support terrorist groups who want to violently impose sharia law on non Muslims and destroy Israel you are challenged. You label the state of Israel apartheid because, it is Jewish. You don't hold Muslim states to the same standard. That's why you have no credibility ands that is why you are challenged. You don't criticize specific Israeli policies. If you did that no one could care less. You are only challenged because you don't do that but instead attack and smeer Jews for existing as Israelis and Israel for being Jewish by identity. Your whining changes nothing. Your comments attacking Jews for being Israel and Israel choosing to be a Jewish state speak for themselves-so does your selective silence as to Muslim nations and Muslim terrorists. Pull the victim crap with someone else.

Now you come on this page after parsing words to misrepresent them on another thread to smeer all Israelis and you continue to pose as a victim who is unfairly criticized for being anti Israel. Your repeat obsession with using this forum to whine and pose yourself as a victim is sad.

This coming from someone who can't come up with a list of molested Middle East nations because he has more important things to do and is baffled when he is asked to provide the list even though I take the time to ask.again ..with great care and concern...and you have no patience for moi? Hey now. That's not nice.. Now your latest allegation is 9-11 was retaliation by Middle East terrorists, presumably after linking it to your other responses, because they were "molested" by Canada is interesting, I always thought Barry Gibb, the remaining Be Gee brother was behind it. Have you cleared your theory with Hot Enough? He's convinced it was evil American conspirators who engaged in a false flag conspiracy operation using a magic fart because he saw images of Beyoncé in some red chips that told him this. He claims he has scientific experience to see things in red chips. Did you speak with him? . You see if he's right, your retaliation theory that it was ME molestation victims lashing back probably contradicts his Yankee conspiracy theory. Get together with him and see if you can sort that out. Hey what about those dancing Israelis? Remember them? Did you ask Hudson or Marcus or Taxme or GhostHacked about them before you came up with your retaliation theory? Maybe Ghost thinks it was bloodthirsty Jews who find terrorism funny who did it. I spoke with Barry Gibb. He admitted it. he also had help from Barry Manilow which makes sense since Barry as you know is one of those New York Jews. Also Neil Diamond, Babs Stresidan, Jerry Steinfeld. and last but not least Josh Brolin because he's the son-in-law of Babs. Also Gary Bettman. There' a clear pattern.. .

Laurel and Hardy are the elements that make steel melt.. " the boy is still working on how to spell vacuous.. he thinks vapid is how a Zionist says quick..." Rue 99.99.99

Guess you don't have more important things to do anymore. Here let me say it in terms you can comprehend -provide me your molestation list and the acts of molestation you refer to by Canada, and which Canadians engaged in this molestation. I think its important you do that so I can call Justin and tell him to compensate some more people and maybe organize another photo op with victims. Get back to me when its not too much trouble. I am sure if you need help Hot Enough can guide you. In addition to being knowledgeable in steel he claims to be in the know on the Middle East.