Peter F

If he's the face of the enemy then we havn't got a hell of a lot to worry about.

Would that be before the murder or after the murder? What would indicate to immigration officials that the man was going to kill someone?

Ah, so our immigration policies should have nothing to do with cultural/ethnic/whatever background of the immigrants. That I agree with.

Of course thier political ideology is fair game - hell, even the religious ideology is fair game. That is obvious and beyond dispute. But reading the linked basis of Peeves contention and even the contention itself leads to one conclusion which contradicts what you are saying. Islam, according to Peeves, must not be viewed as a religion but as a political ideology. His linked opinion piece describes why it is necessary to conclude that. It is necessary because then "Western Civilizitation" will not be hobbled by the civilized concept of freedom of religion. We can then take some sort of un-named steps against the political ideology. Of course the linked op is full of shit too because even if we took the absurd position that Islam is not a religion - we still couldn't take any steps against the political ideology....outside of criticising it - just as we do now at this very moment and all over these very forums. So Peeves point is, well, without one.

Not true. The SCC has ruled in favour of the government and its laws many many many times. Just go look at the decisions of the SCC and the Federal Courts. The laws of parliament have a huge dominating impact on the courts decisions.

Islam is very obviously a religion - no matter what its political power. There are many many muslims almost completely devoid of political influence in North America. So, by your own standard, in North America its a real valid religion is it not?

Your contention is: If there is a major political or military component I feel that it can't be a religion. What is christianity by that definition? Apperently it could not have been a religion up until when? Then it became a religion once it lost political/military influence (and I am suggesting that Christians have not lost the political element that they used to have)? By your own definition christianity could not have been a religion. Its political influence may have waned in recent years but it aint politically dead yet.

except the gender is usually recognized during an ultra-sound not performed by a doctor. The requirement to keep gender secret will be impossible to fulfill or enforce and thus anyregulation will be useless. Like Blackdog mentioned before, a woman can procure an abortion for whatever reason they desire without need to justify to anyone. Thus no silly useless unenforceable regulation is required.

I don't agree. Firstoff, let me state that I find the article you link is beneath contempt. The author is so blinded by his/her own ideology. The claim that Christianity/Judaism have no political dimensions is an obvious and blatant falsehood. The second obvious falsehood is the claim that Muhammad's main objective was to conquer and dominate the world. The third obvious falsehood is the claim that muslims can sacrifice morality and ethics to achieve the aforementioned end. The fourth obvious falsehood is the claim that muslims are allowed and even encouraged to break rules of ethics and fairness to achieve world domination. And thats just the four sentences you quote! Four sentences - all of them bullshit. Thus my contempt My contempt aside, is there any merit to the argument that Islam is not a religion yet Christianity is - bearing in mind that Peeves contends that it is the political character of Islam which sets it apart from Christianity or Judaism and in fact most (if not all) other religions. It seems Peeves has never heard of a christian-democratic party in European or North American democracies. Nor has he heard of Jerry Falwell and the 'moral majority'. In Canada we also have religious dominated political parties that seek political power. As was pointed out on another thread, we still have blasphemy laws on the books in this country. So I can agree that Religion has much less political influence in western countries than in the past (which is where the blasphemy laws came from), but that is only because Christianity as a political power has lost much of its grass-roots support over the last 50-60 years. Should things change and people start turning to religion and society become less secular, then Peeve's contention will be shown to have no merit.

Of course there is. No question about terrorists being charged with murder. But the question is has anyone, terrorist or no, been charged with murder while an unpriveledged combatant - like Mr. Khadr's murder conviction. Perhaps it bears repeating that after 10 years of combat in afghanistan not to mention Iraq, with all the various gunfights and other exchanges of gunfire with insurgents, there has been no one else charged with the same - I assume common - crime of murder while an unprivledged combatant.

I suppose others could very well have been charged. But if they have then the people doing the charging have kept it secret and thus your favourite terrorist lover has no knowledge of them being charged. Or, it could be, that no one outside of Khadr and Jawad was charged murder by an unpriviledged combatant. Since I have never heard of anyone being charged like that I assume no one has been charged since Khadr. You also have not heard of anyone being charged but assume that there must be some somewhere.

And yet Khadr was the only such combatant charged with murder? Perhaps no other combatant has ever been captured? or perhaps no other combatant murdered in an unprivledged way an american combatant? Even without CSI teams they charged Khadr for a combat death. He is the only one that has ever been charged - after what? 10 years of war in Afghanistan - as a murderer for a combat death. Whats up with that?

Damn right we do.

No, I was referring to surviving the injuries he recieved. I had forgotten about the pleading to be finished off.

He already falls into a catagory: Murderer (alleged). That being so what was all the rigamarole with creating military commisions? Murderers are tried every day in civil courts. Hell, even people who are charged with war-crimes end up in civilian courtrooms. But that would be too much trouble producing evidence and having the accused actually see the evidence etc. And I think your idea that 'he could have surrendered' is very very far fetched. Once the American SF boys start an assault they are not going in to take prisoners. They shoot everyone - just like Haditha and just like Khost. Omar was the only one to survive the assualt and that by some sort of miracle.

Seasoned veteran?? The shootemup at khost was the first time he'd ever been under fire. Seasoned veteran my ass. Terrified kid more like. and weapons training too! His weapons training amounted to heres an ak47 and heres the clip of ammo. This goes in here like so, now shoot at that target....ok your trained. People are assigning him all sorts of talents based on nothing-at-all not to mention all the crimes of everyone else are dumped on him too. He's not Bond. So lets stop trying to make him out to be some sort of evil genius. No one saw him throw the grenade. They assumed it was him because of the direction the grenade 'probably' came from and Khadr was the only guy left alive in that direction - the other two that were also in that direction having been killed alreadly. and that was his crime. Pretty goddamn flimsy, but nevertheless, after 7 or so years of confinement with no light at the end of his tunnel , he copped to the crime. He has been assigned all western fears. Every cruelty that people have heard of happening has been assigned to Omar Khadr. Terrorists cutting of heads? Omar probably wants to do that! Skinned people alive? Omar probably wants to do that. Throw acid in the faces little girls? probably Omar. I suggest it is more reasonable to keep things confined to what Omar actually did rather than letting our imaginations run amok.

as I said: Almost always.

you certainly don't

Almost always. nope

Almost all killings can be described as honour killings.

Definately? i think not. Heres a short list of women being murdered in Canada and religion has very little to do with any of them. Link

Does drunken violence outrage you?

yup.

Lets review; Woman commits crime - attempted murder or assault or something. Woman arrested for committing crime. Perhaps there'll be a trial maybe? Maybe she'll be found guilty and sent to prison maybe. This sort of thing happens often enough. That the perp is a muslim has dickall to do with anything.