Peter F

I was born here. Should that make any difference? If I engage in the same behaviour as the widow Khadr no one can touch my citizenship. I could actually kill people, throw puppies from cliffs, eat babies and rape nuns; my citizenship would remain intact and inviolable. But an immigrant, also a Canadian citizen, who commits the same crimes is not to be treated the same; In addition to the required punishments, they will also be stripped of their citizenship. But not me. My citizenship can't be touched. Doesn't make any sense to me.

Why hers and not mine? Nobody has asked me if I will swear allegiance to Crown. Why is my citizenship untouchable when I could be just as disloyal to this country as she?

I'm against it.

I agree; Anyone who advocates killing as a means to achieve a particular end is a nut. But that has nothing to do with citizenship.

Appaently, in this case, you are mistaken. Mrs. Khadr is as free as I am.

Yes I am ok with her living in my country. I'm Ok with Paul Bernardo living in this country too. In fact oue prisons are full of Canadian citizens. This country is loaded with vile citizens. Khadr's mom is just one more. Now that I think of it, so is the USofA, perhaps you should consider why you're ok with that before shitting on me for accepting that scumbags and morons actually hold Canadian Citizenship. There is no requirement for you to understand Canadian laws. Perhaps the various Attorney Generals and the boffins at the Department of Justice do understand Canada's hate laws and so she has not been charged under them. My father encouraged his children with talk and deed to take action against corporations, sometimes violent destructive action. People in this country can say whatever they fucking like in the privacy of thier own homes - even to the point of advocating the violent overthrow of the government if they so wish. They just can't publish broadcast or teach such things. Khadr's mom hasn't done that - so no crime to kick her out of the country for. Gnash your teeth all you want. All very true. But she wasn't attempting to procure a hit man. Never did. How about if I encourage them to be willing to die for a cause? or to be willing to kill for a cause? would that still be interesting too?

Well, lets see...She aint no terrorist or she'd be in jail. She hasn't publicly advocated overthrowing the State or she'd be in jail. In fact, the only thing she has done is encouraged her children to become suicide bombers...dispicable and reprehensable? Certainly. Criminal? No. Perhaps she could be fined for hate under the Human Rights act? Maybe, and then again maybe not. It's not a crime to be an idiot, in this country anyways. Even with the freak Conservatives and Liberals making the laws and appointing all the judges.

Well, since none of her children became suicide bombers, I'd say she did a pretty piss-poor job of encouraging her children to become suicide bombers. Since she did not actually get on the local community TV channel and broadcast encouragement of children to become suicide bombers I'd say she has not committed any crime. Other than a 'thought' crime...wich really isn't a crime. Perhaps she should be fined though. Then again, since nobody in authority has actuallly charged her with anything or arrested her for anything (and we do have Security Certificates in this country) I'd say She may be a nut, but she's no criminal. Still looking for a crime here.

When was she charged for this crime?

Did she hold a lecture series? Published material stating her views? Somebody please come up with a crime...

Me? Lax? Is she in jail? We do have laws against such things? Whens the trial?

Yes, American Woman, I do realize she is living in Canada. And you are correct; I have no problem with her being a Canadian and urging her children towards terrorism. When she commits a crime let me know.

Its truly awful to be criticized for criticizising. There should be a law....

Oh those Khadr's! Terrorists every one...except none of them are terrorists. Despite momma and pappa's urgings. Even the most likely terrorist is allowed to resign from the CIA and go live where-ever he friggin wants.

As should we all. Oh for a world where the children are smarter than the parents.... I appreciate the sentiment but all credit belongs to the mother. It's kinda funny though because she is far more adamant about him not volounteering than I.

Neither have I. In fact I counsel seditious ideas to my infantryman son. Funny, what a Canadian of European ancestry can get away with...

or Fraser...

Alleged terrorist...

Yes to the following: 3. You believe that all cultures are equally valid. 4. You believe that Iraq 2.0 is all about oil. 5. You believe that war is not the answer. 8. You believe we should sign the Kyoto Protocol. 9. You believe that socialism is still the answer. 10. You support the troops but don't support the war.

Agreed. However, sometimes its not accidental. But considered acceptable risk.

The folks who triggered the devices deserved to die - no one else. Terrorists are brutal callous useless bastards. Kill them all. Have I ever disagreed with you on that point?

Collateral damage is acceptable as long as the target terrorists are destroyed. Terrorists are brutal because they wilfuly kill non-combatants. The west is not as brutal because we don't wilfully kill non-combatants. The difference between us and them is willfull killing and non-willfull killing.

Granted, it depend's on the situation.

...wich actually works in our favour in a counter-insurgency. An will work in your's too, albeit it is tempting to expend that ammo.

I certainly do think the USAF would/have dropped ordinance knowing full well that civilian casualties would probably be the result. But, you see, they hoped it wouldn't be the result. It's that 'hoping' or the realization that 'oops the target wasnt what we thought it was' that gives jbg and dogonportch that lift of morality that puts us above terrorists. I agree with you though. Civilians killed through the application of Western firepower, even if the shooters hearts were in the right place, actually do far more harm to the cause of anti-terrorism than good. Its so detrimental to the cause, that western soldiers must even put thier own lives at risk to avoid civilian casualties - they must stand and die rather than cause civilian casualties. The US is slowly coming around to this belief. For the first three years they shot first and asked questions later wich directly led to an increasingly violent insurgency in Iraq. They lost many allies as a result of thier willingness to expend ammunition to resolve uncertainty. Canada, thanks be to god above, imposes far more fire discipline amongst its troops - thus the higher fatality rate of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. jbg and dogonportch regret civilian casualties but don't realize that causing civilian casualties is the worst possible thing we can do - worse even than a terrorist bomb going off. By miles.