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!

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.

The article itself gives reasons that directly reflect the harder stance Trump has taken - people being more careful in their paperwork or just choosing not to go to the States. The article does not support the OP implication that Canadians' concerns about crossing the border are unwarranted.

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.

Irrelevant. This is a British man born in Kent. He has no family in the middle east.

I am trying to recall more nonsense and untruths per sentence by anybody, ever, in this forum I;m coming up short.. I would like to see Turkey not ruled by a fascist prick intent on moving his society back into the Stone Age, while simultaneously imprisoning every person who does not agree with him. I doubt it is possible to stop him from either act, certainly not when the likes of you applaud his every miserable, hateful oppressive action.

You are wrong Rue. This is what happens when you are in a debate. You cannot always talk about a topic without looking at the context. There is a discussion about the motivation of terrorists. You are trying very hard to blame this on the religion. Some others are saying that we need to look at the West's foreign policy to understand the motive. You simply cannot talk about terrorism without talking about the cause and effect. All you and some others want to do is for people to accept your perspective that this is all about a religion and it's the religion that motivates people to go over the edge. Many don't agree with that and they are giving their reasons why.

Judging Trump by his personal behavior has nothing to do with his policies and how he will govern. Lots of people have divorces and often there are good reasons for it. Women (or men) who are abused should get divorced. Abuse of all kinds is prevalent in the world; many people should get out. Staying in marriage when there is abuse is contributing to the abuse. It is pharisaical to judge divorced people. You do not know them or their circumstances. Supporting Hillary and the democrats which endorse and defend abortion (8 million abortions in a short number of years) and being judgmental about Trump's personal life is very Pharisaical and hypocritical. Hillary also attacked the women whom Bill Clinton assaulted.

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.

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.

I seriously think having a Muslim prayer room is part of a bigger, orchestrated agenda. It's happening in other places too. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4059428/Muslim-University-Maryland-students-demand-prayer-rooms-major-building-ask-names-kept-Donald-Trump.html#ixzz4cXSMLywC Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

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.

These two are not mutually exclusive as the evidence suggests....

Let's not be coy: only Muslims are clamoring for 'prayer rooms'. Not Hindus, not Buddhists, not Jews, not Christians..... Only Muslims are demanding special treatment...and they're getting it.

What that you have come on this board and on a thread to discuss a London terrorist attack deny its a terrorist attack and try change the subject to draw a moral equivalency between what the terrorist did and what you perceive is the West engaging in terrorism against Muslims? Overly voluble. Lol. You know what your agenda is. Have the integrity to state it and stop couching your words.

I don't think so. I think a very particular kind of person goes to a forum to express themselves and argue with others. The vast majority of Canadians I know do not trouble themselves with this let alone keep up with the news or politics. Most people are quiet and prefer to mind their own business. The attitude generally is "you go ahead and do your thing and I will do my thing." It's only when people feel they are being unfairly singled out or given less chance than others, then they feel offended. An example is this thread- the issue at hand is that there are laws to protect secularism, which suppressed some people's freedom of expression. Before this it was normal to have a prayer at school in the morning. The state took action to eliminate these references. The problem today is people feel Islam is being given preferential treatment. If you listen to the video you will hear one man keeps saying "No special treatment for anyone." That is the issue.

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.

Frankly, I find such Canadian reactions to be delightfully refreshing, and a sharp departure from the usual passive, docile mindset. Now they will have more than the damn Americans to fight about.

I think his name was not-so-hot

That wasn't created by the U.S. the jihad terrorists have been at it for about 1300 years.

Agreed....the RCMP and CBSA have purposely stopped reporting "irregular" entries into Canada. Politically, if they don't count the illegals then maybe they will just go away, disappearing into Canada's largest cities. Canada has created legal and political circumstances that are very favourable to illegal entry at the U.S. border. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/asylum-seekers-statistics-difficult-to-track-1.4028468

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.

You state, and overstate lots of things, Rue, in way overly voluble ways.

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

So now let's see. the vast majority of not just US citizens but MOST Westerns are brainwashed. Hey nice to know. As I stated earlier, your agenda is simply to come on this forum and justify terrorism by stereotyping the entire West's civilians as evil. You don't you have the integrity to explain your actual religious views and why you support terrorism.

Montreal Imam: Jews are the most evil of mankind, human demons, quotes kill Jews passage from hadiths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSzSTd3kN3E Different Montreal Imam says "Destroy the accursed Jews" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_6wEZJT9dM Imam and congregation of Toronto Masjid Mosque Call for the Death of All Jews and Christians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13WTFjcZWes

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

Nothing says "kind and benevolent US/UK" like murdering half a million Iraqi children and another half a million Iraqi adults in the 1990s. And then a further million or so in the illegal invasion of 2003, based completely on lies.

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?

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

Do you know how many US militants invaded, illegally, Iraq and Afghanisan? Do you know how long this same history has repeated itself?

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!"

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.

I never denied that, Captain Reading Comprehension. There's all kinds of people preaching hate in Canada, you being one of them, right here in this thread. Like I said though... If these people are so hell bent on genocide, why aren't our million+ muslim's killing at LEAST a few hundred unbelievers a week? Could it be... that your'e full of crap?

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.

Not really. I've pointed out pacifist Muslim sects, told you what my non-violent and equality-minded Muslim family and friends believe, and you've responded that unless they are willing to kill apostates, gays, oppress women, etc, then they are "not true Muslims". What is that but demanding that Muslims behave reprehensibly in order to be considered 'true Muslims' in your mind? I don't think I've misrepresented your position at all. I think you lose every single one of these discussions.

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