Terrorism is supposed to be politically motivated violence against civilians; by that definition, Khadr should not be tried as a terrorist, as he threw a grenade at a soldier in a country at war. He is being tried as a terrorist because that soldier was part of an occupying force supposedly "fighting terrorism." To oppose the war on terror, by George Bush's logic (2001 statement: "if you're not with us, you're against us"), must mean support for terrorism, right?

Google RAWA for examples of how you can oppose both the Taliban and the US-led war in Afganistan. Also interesting is the Wikipedia page on "You're either with us, or against us." I particularly like the condemnation of this logic in Disney's Beauty and the Beast, of all places.

quick question, (Kinda)

How is Omar Khadr any different from any of the other soldiers that have thrown a grenade (allegedly) during a war? Is he special somehow? or are now trying anyone who has ever killed someone during a war? Or just the people not on our side? Does not being on our side automatically make someone a terrorist?

sorta got away from me there. sorry. just trying to figure some things out. Any insight would be appreciated.

Yet another reason why it's a bad idea to live in Calgary: the fLames.

Here's a fun video... about not-Calgary. Corb Lund pretending to be a Nashvillian for an Oilers website promo ad.

Oh yeah, and in case you didn't see the new Quidditch jerseys in Calgary.

Nabokov: "Let me ask you, would you want to play for the Edmonton Oilers, for example?" [laughter]

Nabokov talks about coming home to KHL, why league isn't 'step back'

That's no fail, that's the Portsmouth Sinfonia!

I'm sorry! I'm really sorry!

what I was telling you about Tony,