Leaderboard

I'm glad I was able to communicate with such clarity even you could understand it.

So you need to understand that they are my schools too - that one religion should not enforce their religious/cultural/medieval practices on anyone else. Pray in private, at home or wherever. Keep our schools free of religion - they are secular and should remain so. !!! As an aside, I believe it is discriminatory to publicly fund Catholic Separate schools.

Lied to the vets ,lied to the military ,lied to the small business, lied to the middle class, lies, lies, and more lies.

What part of "Public Schools" don't you understand? Public = open to all persons, for the community as a whole, the common interest being Education Schools = Not churches or mosques

I'm not interested in prayers or religion of any kind in our PUBLIC SECULAR schools... freedom of religion doesn't include turning our schools into places of worship, it belongs at home or wherever you go to genuflect to your idols. Not to mention condoning medieval rubbish in our system. The school they are referencing here is in Toronto, https://themuslimtimes.info/2017/01/18/muslim-students-gain-group-prayer-rights-in-canadian-schools/comment-page-1/ In addition, the education director is allowing Muslim students to gather in groups for daily prayers in the schools. At school prayer services, mosque rules apply, meaning genders are segregated and menstruating girls are permitted to watch but not participate.

Of course Christians are subjects to attacks - all you have to do is listen to what's being said against Christians. We know of actual Christian persecutions in Muslim countries.....Muslims targetting Christians for atrocious acts! Now we're talking about the very likelihood of physical violence in Canada. Especially so when an imam calls for violence to be committed on Christians! We know who's most likely to follow an imam's call for violence!

It has come to my attention that the RCMP have decided(no doubt ordered by our politicians)to not report on how many criminal illegals are crossing into Canada from America. Why? Why is this being done? Most likely not to get the public any more upset than they already are about how many criminals have already entered Canada this year. So, we are to kept in the dark about this dangerous situation where many of these criminal illegals may be terrorists. Why are we not to be told anymore about this situation? Canada is being invaded by criminals and our own politicians don't want us to hear or know about this anymore. I guess when the summer gets here, and the flow is suppose to maybe get bigger, keeping it from we the people is probably a good idea for our politicians to not have to answer too for their complicity in all of this so-called refugee nonsense. We the people are shown constant contempt by our fake politicians who continually keep trying to pull off stunts like this refugee stuff on the taxpayer who has to foot the bill for these illegal criminals. Even the fake media is going along with the quiet game. Other than The Rebel I would never be informed and know as to what is going on. And then there are some who think that The Rebel is a right wing loonie alternative media. Well, not to me they are not. I am glad that we have at least a media outfit in Canada that will tell and give us the other side of the story, the other side of the story that our politicians and media won't tell us and report on it. Canada is fast becoming a real sad looking country indeed.

Haha... Btw, the website that you quoted from belongs to Ahmeddiya community. In most of the Muslim world, they are considered infidels. They are thrown in jails for blasphemy, they aren't allowed to read Quran or greet using Islamic words. A lot of them ran away from their countries to take refuge in the West. Canada has a healthy population of these people.

Re: Quran being attacked. Feel free to download a copy and delete it...it's probably considered a sin in certain Islamic jurisprudence. https://www.alislam.org/quran/Holy-Quran-English.pdf (PDF)

Source. If it is true, it probably reflects people wanting to see the foolishness of the US for themselves. Whites can blend in and watch this farce, this low comedy, this cheap burlesque unfold before their eyes.

Hooo hoo hooooooo, what I found now. British dictatorship's Prence's helicopter been harrashed by an unmanned air vehicle. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3179851/prince-williams-horror-as-drone-comes-within-half-a-second-of-hitting-his-air-ambulance-in-shocking-near-miss/

I guess you are right - who would ever believe anything Trump says. Just the fact that Trump said what he has said, multiple times, is a good enough reason for any sane person to not want to go anywhere near the joint. And what adult would ever risk the chance of a Muslim/brown skinned child under their care being taken away for interrogation, most assuredly without a guardian being present. Then you go right back to what, your raw data as support for your own admission that it has no extant validity.

Fine. But any organization that cancels trips to the US because of anecdotal stories are being reactionary and stupid.

Again, raw numbers can't and won't show that. That was my only point.

Your conclusions are not necessarily accurate ones. Raw numbers do not tell the story.

It is for the very reasons that the US has no experience dealing with terrorism that had to endure the tragic events of 9/11....

Indeed....IRA was quite nasty back in those days...

Its not canned. Its overt and in direct response to your continuing attempts to justify terrorism by depicting all people of the US and the UK and the West as deserving being attacked by terrorists since they are in your opinion terrorist. You spew on cue, I respond.

Nothing to do with the thread, not a damn thing, again an example of trying to change the topic from a terrorist attack to trying to piss on US foreign policies. This deflection does not address what the terrorist did or justify what the terrorist did. It is however a classic example of people whose agenda is to come on this board and justify and apologize for terrorism by trying to state that the US is evil. The terrorist did not attack innocent civilians because of Rumsfled or Wolfowitz or so called fabricaton of the WMD which is that this individual is trying to suggest. Its a classic example of trying to legitimize terrorism by arguing its justified since he US in this responder's opinion is evil. It is illogical and it apologizes for terrorism.

Yes really....regime change in Iraq was the purpose and intention of "Desert Fox" and subsequent actions by the Clinton administration. Terrorist attacks in the UK were dominated by the IRA and "The Troubles" until the early 2000's, then the radical Islamists took over.

Not really. The neo-cons wanted a full on invasion but they couldn't get it in the 90's despite a lot of lobbying. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were part of that push. There is a difference between weakening Saddam's regime and going in there and removing him. Going in there and removing him could only be achieved after 9/11 and after fabricating the WMD so-called evidence.

The objective was not to push aside Saddam and 'regime change' when those relatively minor attacks happened. That was initiated when Cheney came to power, after 9/11 and after the WMD fabrication.

We are in trouble if a lot of Canadians think it is a crime to tear up a religious book. Freedom (including freedom to offend) is a tenuous thing and will only exist as long as people are prepared to defend it. There are a lot of left wing freedom justice warriors in Canada who think nobody should be able to legally "offend" anyone else. They are on the warpath. Watch out.

Remember when the polls said he wouldn't be President? I take them with a grain of salt. Just in case it hasn't been discussed enough... The polls taken immediately before the election were actually very accurate... Clinton beat Trump by ~2% in the popular vote, whereas most opinion polls prior to the elect had Clinton's victory in the 1-4% range. Now, it is true that many political writers gave Trump little chance to win, but that was not the fault of the polls... it was a problem of bad analysis (in particular, concentrating on the federal popular vote rather than state polls that would have an effect on the electoral college.) In short, I think the polls are probably an accurate assessment (depending on the question that was actually asked in the poll.)

Nice try, Jihadi. I am your worst nightmare. A kuffar who has read the Quran. I fully expect you to support Islam as it attempts to force everybody to dance to its tune.

Altai, I live in GTA. It is a melting pot of culture and races. (A few people like taxme want to make Toronto white again, but that's another story) In my town, last Ramadan, local govt representatives (mainly Christians) fasted along with Muslim community. And all the money they saved on lunches, they donated to a charity. On Eid, they wore traditional Islamic dresses and attended Namaz with the Muslim community. Also, during Christmas, many Muslims decorate their homes and become part of festivities. Point is: Canada is a beautiful country with a lot of diversity and tolerance. Some people might have extreme opinions built upon certain biases and bad life experiences. But overall, Canada is one of the best places to live in the world.

The principal difference is that the American administration is telling illegals to "GET OUT", whilst the Canadian administration is telling illegals "WECOME", in purposeful and direct opposition to the U.S. for political expediency. So let's just see how many illegals Canada can handle before the backlash is severe.

C'mon Betsy, we are living in a new Canada today, don't you know, where if one is white and Christian you are evil. But be of a religion who cuts of heads, throws gays and infidels off roofs blindfolded, drowns it's victims in cages, and kills it's women for being raped then they are welcome in Canada with open arms. Our politicians are totally out of whack. They are on the road to destroying everything decent and moral for a world of sodom and gomorrah, and the killing of infidels. I have to wonder as to what the hell these politicians are smoking? Maybe that is why the liberals would like to legalize marijuana, it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy all over, and are ready to accept the world with no questions asked. They say welcome to Canada. We don't care what you do or have done, just come on down.

I think his name was not-so-hot

Indeed, this is what the elite zionists, who control our media and politicians by the politically correct brainwashing strings, are being allowed to get away with. Causing division to keep the people fighting against one another while they sit back and laugh, and continue with what they have been getting away with for decades. Screwing the Canadian taxpaying public out of money with their liberal multicultural nonsense. It would appear as though Canadians are being set up for one big confrontation between Christians and Islam down the Canadian road one day. At least this is what my gut feeling is trying to tell me. Am I wrong on this? Hey, let me know.

With the assistance of the Green Party and the NDP the liberals were able to pass Motion 103 with 201 for, and 91 against. This just shows that our politicians constantly show contempt towards we the people by allowing a certain religion to be able to force it's religion on the people without any authority to do so by the people other than someIslamic MP thought Canada needed a law to stop the promotion of anti-Islam. We are now seeing the beginning of creeping Sharia law working it's way into Canada, and it could eventually become a law in Canada, and allowed to exist alongside Canadian law. It is well known that muslims will not assimilat, and their stated goal is to force Sharia law on the world, if they can get away with it. Lucky it was not some white Christian calling for the extermination of Jews. We all would know that the person doing so would be mercilessly attacked by our fake politicians and fake media without let up until the person was arrested and charged. But an Imam can get away with it. Canada is going to hell because of multiculturalism.

Bangers and mashed can't beat haggis, neeps and tatties.

For anyone British, you call sausages bangers. That is proof you are terrorists.

The only thing pathetic is how you try back track from your words. You spew them out then try pull what this little Michael Jackson backpedal move? Lol. Real smooth moves Bwana.

Yup, the UK is number two, right behind the USA.

You are talking about the war that the US encouraged Iraq to start and then supplied them with chemical weapons that were used on Iranians. Bush the big told Saddam that the US had no interest in regional differences. Then the US flipped, and ended that conflict with a massive war crimes - The Highway of Death.

It is very simple actually. How do you think that the vast majority of US citizens, and most westerners who are equally brainwashed, think that the USA is a kind, benevolent peace loving country when it is totally the opposite. It's a nation born of terrorism and genocide, it has been at war for some 93% of its years as a "nation".

No doubt you are correct. Righties are rather more cowardly, preferring to appease bullies for fear of offending them and scared witless of people who don't look or act like them. Good thing lefties are around to push for things like equal rights for all people; righties would have kept us back in the 50s. Aren't sweeping generalizations fun?

Since you seem to have the inside track on the mind of this man, please explain, in comprehensible prose, in less than 30,000 words, why he did what he did?

The point that you are trying so desperately to avoid is that the US school system is every bit as propagandist as the Madrassas.

Its not about likely hood, one could argue there'd be tourist any and everywhere in London being a tourist city. It is about the target, there are 100 targets better than a bridge sidewalk to run your car into. We seen in the Nice attack, there are alot better places to do it. Especially in London. This was an attack strictly aimed at government with civilian collateral damage. By your logic, any attack on ISIS, would have to be classified as a terror attack from the west. Because ISIS is always near civilians and operates out of government buildings. ISIS issues ISIS passport and currency.

No, there was no way for him to know who was a tourist, the assumption would be this is near government, people in the area are government workers. He didn't jump out his car and stab random people but cops, he was clearly targetting government. Even if he did hit some tourist or was indifferent to it, its not terrorism because the target was government, they were just collateral damage.

Muslims have been victims, the victims of illegal attacks on their countries, which far outweigh any attacks on the western illegal invaders. It doesn't help your case to always be crying wolf or running around screaming, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". Why do you keep repeating this self-delusion, above?

Well first off I need to point out that Argus was correct in his assertion that blacks played a role in the slave trade in Africa. On reading back my response to him I could and should be been clearer and stated while they did capture the slaves they didn't own them as much as the Arabs or Europeans did but Argus is correct they did not just capture and sell slaves but they owned them as well. I also stated and so did PIK and Michael H questioned what he said. I stated and now will provide citations that shows that: 1-the Arab slave trade went on longer than the European one 2-Argus is right on his previous comments 3-so was PIK 4-Arabs Europeans, blacks, Jews we all engaged in slavery. Now to start and be specific there was a group of Jews in the Ottoman Empire in Constantinople who traded slaves and they were in fact violating Jewish religion butt hey did it. There were some Jews from Britain and the US as well who got involved in it. Its crazy because Jews were once slaves so the religion expressly forbids it. These were a minority of Jews but they did engage in it. Then of course there was wide spread slave trading in Europe, America and the Arab world but the Arab slave trade went on much longer and actually American slave trade was not as long as European slave trade. That said I am providing these cites just to provide info. Slavery was wrong period. The point I was raising is there is a double standard used in narratives on this board about past history-like Bush Chaney I can't stand revisionists changing history for political reasons of propriety. I also trust this will directly address any remaining questions Michael H. had of me: 1. Black African involvement in slavery: cite: http://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/people-involved/traders-merchants-planters/slave-traders/african-slave-traders/ · enslaved Africans bought by the Europeans were sold by African slave traders. In West Africa there are many different cultures and societies · The West Africans who most prospered in the transatlantic slave trade were those from the most warlike and tightly organised societies with strong rulers who preyed on their neighbours. These societies would be more likely to wage war on their neighbouring communities, enslave prisoners of war and trade them to the Europeans · The rulers of these societies usually appointed caboceers (traders) to deal with European slave traders · Many, such as the caboceer from the Fante people, John Currantee, or the leader from the Efik people Ephraim Robin John (known to the European traders as King George) were well-known as canny and ruthless dealers · They were able to communicate in a number of European and African languages. · The African slave traders were skilled in using to their advantage the rivalries between the French, the English and the Dutch to get the best prices for their slaves · Often they demanded (and received) ‘gifts’ or ‘custom fees’, known in some quarters as ‘dashee’, from the European cite: http://www.newafricanmagazine.com/slavery-atlantic-trade-and-arab-slavery “There is an even more painful issue to consider. The Europeans did not wage wars to capture and enslave Africans. They bought them from Africans, who sold prisoners-of-war to them. Yes, the Europeans encouraged wars – to ensure that they obtained the number of enslaved they wanted. Clearly, some Africans, and not only coastal peoples, were willing to participate. An example of the latter were the kings of Asante, who conquered peoples to their north for export to the European slave “forts” along the coast. Thus their already immense wealth from trade in gold and kola nuts was vastly increased. And it was these wealthy merchants who first sent their children to Europe to acquire western education, and thus became the “natural” native leaders and “professionals” within the colonies – and eventually the first members of Legislative Assemblies, etc. So are those claiming reparations going to make a claim from these Africans also? “ 2. American slavery was shorter in time span than European slavery which was shorter in time span than Arab slavery cite: http://www.wisegeek.com/how-did-the-african-slave-trade-begin.htm · the slave trade inside Africa itself was common in Ghana and Nigeria in the 18th century, where the countries' economies depended largely on the selling of hand labor to neighboring estates · slavery inside Africa was often not for life; slaves had the option of buying their liberty, and were normally paid enough that they could do it after a certain number of years · African slave trade became common in Europe first, starting with Portugal, who took slaves to Brazil to mine the mountains in the 1700’s · the Caribbean soon followed, and then other countries of South and Central America · the US-African slave trade was far smaller than that managed by other countries · of all slaves to reach America, only 4.4 percent ended up in North American territory · Britain stopped slavery in 1807, although slaves were not officially declared free until 1833, when the Slavery Abolition Act was passed · rest of Europe followed close behind, with certain African countries forbidding slavery early in the 20th century 3. Arab Slavery was longer in duration than European slavery and probably worse cite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade · the Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab world, mainly in Western Asia, North Africa, Southeast Africa, the Horn of Africa and certain parts of Europe (such as Iberia and Sicily) · this barter occurred chiefly between the medieval era and the early 21st century · the trade was conducted through slave markets in these areas, with the slaves captured mostly from Africa's interior · Arabs killed more Africans in transit, especially when crossing the Sahara Desert, than Europeans and Americans, and over more centuries, both before and after the years of the Atlantic slave trade · Arab Muslims began extracting millions of black African slaves centuries before Christian nations did · Arab slave traders removed slaves from Africa for about 13 centuries, compared to three centuries of the Atlantic slave trade · African slaves transported by Arabs across the Sahara Desert died more often than slaves making the Middle Passage to the New World by ship · Slaves invariably died within five years if they worked in the Ottoman Empire’s Sahara salt mines · Black Africans did not enjoy immunities to many of the diseases found in the Arab world, which also resulted in high death rates · Slaveholders in the Muslim world often castrated black African male slaves to serve as harem guards-this is a prime reason there are not many communities of blacks living in the non-African Muslim world today, despite the millions of black African slaves sold into the Muslim world · many African boys did not survive their castration surgery · African women were enslaved by Arabs more than African men · In 1860, when 3,000 black female slaves were set free in Zanzibar, only 5% of them had children · since under Islamic law a concubine bearing the child of the master could become a wife and her children would then share in the inheritance, Middle Eastern wives and children of masters had a strong incentive to interfere with the sex lives of female slaves and cause brutal abortions · Islamic jurisprudence historically allowed abortions in the first four months of pregnancy, long before the West allowed it-Islamic tradition supports the view that the soul enters the fetus at 120 days-if a concubine had the only son, the threat to the wife was even greate · The Koran allowed Muslim men to have as many concubines as they could afford, in addition to four wives. · The Arab history of anti-black racism predates European anti-black racism by several centuries · The early Islamic empire exhibited all the characteristics of anti-black racism, and blacks suffered the lowest form of bondage · The main reasons we have not heard more about the horrors of slavery in the Muslim world are that Muslims did not express moral outrage against slavery and wrote no abolitionist literature against the institution of slavery · The moral outrage against slavery was and is, in the grand historical context, a European-inspired cause gaining significant traction only in the 1760s · As late as 1960, African Muslims still sold slaves when they arrived on pilgrimages, as a way to finance their pilgrimages. Arab nations lagged far behind the rest of the world in abolishing slavery: Saudi Arabia and Yemen in 1962, United Arab Emirates in 1963, Oman in 1970 and Mauritania officially in 1981. Today, according to U.S. State Department figures, Muslim nations condone international human trafficking more than Western countries do. · David Livingstone observed in Africa the horrendous slave trading practices of Arab and pagan slave traders, decades after Great Britain had begun to suppress the international slave trade, and almost a century after Lord Mansfield, with the stroke of a pen, freed slaves in England · The Ottoman Empire resisted British efforts to suppress slavery and the slave trade · Over the course of 70 years, 2,000 British sailors died to free 160,000 slaves. While Islam urged improved treatment of slaves in some ways, the rapid expansion of the Muslim empire rapidly increased the number of slaves, leading to crueler treatment. Africa and the Middle East never developed the moral abolitionist fervor seen in Western nations. Slavery is now most prominent in Africa. · From the time of the Crusades until the early 1800’s, Barbary pirates or corsairs from Muslim North Africa raided European coasts and waters, selling captive Europeans as slaves in North African ports and Istanbul 4. Even Black Americans owned slaves cite: http://conservative-headlines.com/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/ · Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacksto own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner · By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone

"The commies are coming, no wait the Mooslims are coming, wait, I just got more news from the rebel, the commies and the Mooslims have joined forces - we is done, the apokolypse is upon us!"

When you can't even get such simple facts correct, I'm afraid that I am going to have to disagree with your contention that the Trump/Bannon crowd is not that dumb.

That is because it is a total non-issue. It's just another nothing pumped up by those with the same mentality of Trump/Bannon etc.

Exactly my point! They are also using the same Quran you and ISIS use to prove that beheading infidels/raping children/spreading war is a requirement of Islam. It's all in the interpretation! Well done, thanks for staying with it till you finally figured it out.

Well, that's an opinion. A certain band of First Nations used to be able to harvest clams as a mainstay of their diet. Climate change has made this impossible and they are suffering as a result. Sharia law, not so much. There is already climate change-related movement of plant, animal and human populations, albeit so small that if you keep your eyes focused firmly elsewhere, you won't notice. Now a good conspiracy-minded person might think that all this Muslim fear is deliberately stoked by the powers-that-be to keep people from noticing their environment disappearing, along with the viability of the human race.

And yet, you are the one demanding that all Muslims kill gays/behead apostates. How can that be?