drummindiver

So he concentrated on radicals in the Middle East (which is why my comment pertains to them, not the Tamils). Fair enough. What about the reams of evidence that show many radicalized westeners, as well as Middle East fanatics, come from well to do families? And you say "their" government. Who are you talking about specifically? Is not the only government they are looking to overthrow Israel's. Which, btw, is a democracy and can be voted out.

This is one of the least informed statements I have read while on these forums. Again, is calling our elected officials "crazed maniacs" allowed under forum rules? Canada was involved before Israel became Israel. The conversation has always been sideways. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3 .

Harper received 39.6 of the votes. Are you blaming him for the fact that many Canadians are apathetic about voting, one of the greatest responsibilty we have as Canadians? And please, please, don't give me the line that it's because of Harper that ppl are apathetic. Just don't. http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

deleted..never meant to post

lol. You have to use a left leaning paper's boorish agnomen? I like calculating, paranoid and vindictive. I think they are good attributes in the cut-throat world of politics. And, unlike Mulcair, we know which country his loyalties lie with.

jbg, so soryy for your loss.

? I'm not sure of your point? 1. Because Muslims did not invent terrorism, therefore their extensive use of it is somehow deemed acceptable? 2. Because they did not invent the suicide bombing tact, their extensive use of it is somehow deemed acceptable? 3.ISIS is not a respone to a failed attempt at regime change. It is an ideologically driven atttempt at creating a caliphate to instill Sharia law. 4.Because asymmetric warfare is not a religous act their extensive use of it is somehow deemed acceptable? 5.Surviellance creates terrorism how? This isn't even a chicken/egg debate. Police-military must respond to terrorism. The arguement is that going after terrorists creates more terrorists. So, do we let them terrorize at will? What problems are you speaking of? Radicalization? Sharia law to be instated worldwide, which is a Muslim's goal? Do we blame ourselves for our feedoms, for allowing women to be equal (yes, I know-we don't allow women to be equal-they are. My point exactly)? These are just a few of the things their religion/ideology hope to change. If you can show me facts to disprove this, please. I'm all ears/eyes/open mind.

Are you serious? Treated like common criminals? They act like common criminals and nothing happens. This is what happens walking down the public street as a white person in Caledonia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N33t-zr1MrQ Start around the 17 min. mark. Native guys assault a vet, wrestle with 6 cops, yet they arrest a white person who did nothing. Reclaimed land? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZhO_3Y5m0 Man almost killed. http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2142289-caledonia-assault-caught-us-off-guard-opp/ A car jacking with injuries. OPP do nothing. No charges. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004114.html No need to pay rent. Don't allow tax payers to walk down public roads. http://www.blogwrath.com/native-issues-2/violent-native-occupier-attacks-gary-mchale-in-caledonia/5828/ Two years less a day for almost killing a man and leaving him brain dead. Leniency because he was Aboriginal. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/23/native-attacker-given-reduced-sentence-for-vicious-caledonia-assault/ The list goes on, though I'm sure you'll find a way to blame the tax paying law abiding non-natives in this conflict.

You are trying to defend their actions by this? That they would shoot a cop if only they had a gun?

You obviously have zero idea of what's happened in Caledonia.

Less substance than Mulcair? You mean the guy with the French citizenship as well as Canadian?

hitops, and this is off topic, but why, as a physician, do you find this morally wrong? You agree that people should have the choice, and I'm sure you have seen people at the worst time of their suffering. Isn't ending suffering compassionately more important than the ethos of preserving life at all costs? I understand Hippocratic Oath is for the preservation of life. I also understand your concern about the evolution of what is acceptable and expected, but, as a physician, you are still entitled to choose and deny services for you patients, aren't you?

We don't need companies getting billions of dollars in subsidies, promising Canadians good paying jobs, then keeping TFW's here for five years. Complete BS for them to say they needed them here that long. Abuse of the tax payers money. http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/labour-war-green-energy-and-foreign-workers/ Another egregous abuse. They are here five years, working in fast food, and are now unemployed. They have a child here. How is this scenario helping anybody but this couple and their child (a Canadian citizen?) become a burden on tax payers now...and even more in the future. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/temporary-foreign-worker-couple-pleads-to-remain-in-canada-1.2886951 If you want to bring in immigrants for humanitarian reasons, fair enough. To an extent. Isn't that the opposite of temporary?

@PrimeNumber...for hijacking a seemingly intelligent user name, you are incredibly obtuse. Unless of course you are trying to obfuscate us with your sciolism. I doubt it though. Your nescience is a little too panoptical.

Dude. Seriously? You're a teacher? I even posted it from a union loving paper, because I can just imagine the bs if I posted anything on here from a Sun newspaper. http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2012/12/03/ontario_teacher_protest_extracurriculars_in_high_schools_to_go_union_says.htmlhttp: //www.timescolonist.com/news/local/union-tells-teachers-to-stop-volunteering-cites-liability-concerns-1.1076148 K, I lied. Here's a link from Sun about my "understanding is grossly incorrect". Is "grossly incorrect" even proper English? I don't know...you tell me, you're the "teacher". http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/03/20130305-084247.html And because you get a Sun link, I thought a Globe link would round it all out. Most viewpoints covered. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/ontario-students-might-have-to-forgo-extracurriculars-for-two-years/article6186956/

lol. Sorry, I assumed ppl posting on a political forum, even those of opposing views, would have something intelligent to add. Never assume I guess.

lol....just kidding Guy. You ask away. Ye of no vapid rhetoric and zero relative points. 16% of the population of France supports ISIS. Even many "radical" Muslims find these guys too extreme. http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795 Some more stats. With links. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/09/04/myth-tiny-radical-minority/ My whole point? You asked me to cite 80% of Muslims identify as moderate. I have my own sliding scale to determine moderate/extreme, but I think we can agree that thinking it ok to be a suicide bomber is a wee bit nutter? (Germany was the most moderate, saying 83% said it was never ok). All Muslims believe in Qu'ran. Which is where they get the "kill the infidel" crap from. And yes, peace passages also. But as you know, all earlier passages are meant to be discarded for later passages. Says Muhammad. But you knew that.

So, again, you have no valid points as to how the Cons are worse than the Libs. Really? Again? , You really are a broken record about this aren't you? No valid points. Again.

Nope. No clue.what it means. I understand you agree with this inflammatory comment. I also understand that you are still not making very astute observations. astute observations. astute observations, at all. But hey, at least you can post emoticons. To imply you were being sarcastic. When in fact you are just ignorant. And I mean that in the literal sense. The literal sense.

80% of Muslims identify as moderates. 100% of Muslims believe the rhetoric which makes the 20% radical. At the end of the day, 20% of1.5 billion ppl is still a hell of a lot of radicalism.

I don't blame Hudak. I blame the ppl of Ontario. Please, how have the provincial Conservatives been worse than the Libs?

Let be clear. Hell,let me be clearer. When you state "Why can't terminal conservatives just live and die according to their own Sharia-like values and rules and leave the rest of society alone?:" you are directly comparing the two. As you have a very limited grasp on comprehending what you are reading, allow me to elucidate. He is/was comparing Conservatism to Sharia Law. Directly Comparing the two. Directly comparing the two. Unfortunately, you do not have a grasp on "reading comprehension" and all that it entails. Like making astute observations that make any sense. Make any sense. Make any sense.

I disagree with this on so many levels. A robber with a gun is a criminal. A terrorist with a gun is well, a terrorist.

Thank you for having me. And just because you have a lot more posts than I does not mean I am not disturbed by this comparison of our democratically elected government to ideology as inherently dangerous as Sharia law. Just sayin.

Liberals win a majority after all the lies,cheating, and stealing........... http://www.noliberals.ca/html/others.html