dialamah

Clearly you fail to grasp what some people have posted.

I feel like I should clarify: I support exterminating actions that result from bad ideas. Or at least trying to. Better?

I agree, and have said so many times. Disagree with this. In the Western world, those teeth have been largely pulled. In other areas of the world, they have not, but as the media doesn't cover those stories with the same enthusiasm as they cover the same things involving Muslims, you think they don't.

I support exterminating ideas.

This is wrong. Of course you should judge him. What you are criticized for is using his behavior to judge all Muslims guilty of the same behavior.

As much as I "hate" the other religions I included, hmm? Anyway, it's not that I hate Christians so much as I hate what some people do in the name of their religion, including Christians. From shaming and shunning people for being gay to jailing or killing them; from expecting the wife to submit to the husband, to beating her or killing her if she does not; from rejecting/shunning nonbelievers to killing them. People do horrible things in the name of their religion, every day. Doesn't matter if it's minor - such as telling a woman she invited a sexual assault because of how she dressed; or major - such as killing a woman because she was raped. Religious people too often think they have a God-given right to control - by whatever means necessary - what other people do, regardless of the damage it does to that person. As are Muslims, did you know that? Same is true of Muslims. Now, I don't know what Jews/Sikhs/Hindus teach in this regard, but I would not be surprised if it were similar. You post to this board about Canada turning into a communist state because of Trudeau/Liberals, and question the loyalty of the government to Canada and to Canada's citizens; you take every opportunity to push the narrative that Canada's leaders are traitors to Canada. Politicians actually do take oaths of loyalty to Canada; have you ever done so? Doesn't your first loyalty lie with your God, and not with Canada? Why shouldn't we be suspicious of people who openly admit that they'll throw Canada and her laws out if it conflicts with their religious beliefs?

Should it be considered treasonous if a Christian (or a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or a Sikh) declared that their first loyalty lies to their deity, not their country? Shouldn't Canada be their first loyalty? Should every religious person have to prove their loyalty to Canada before being allowed to freely practice their religion?

1. Saying words is not the same as 'being loyal'. 2. Why the assumption that having dual citizenship means that loyalty to one must be questionable? Its kind of like having kids: having two doesn't (usually) mean one gets more love and care at the expense of the other. The only time having dual loyalties would matter is if there were direct conflict between the two countries; at that point, the individual will indeed have to decide their ultimate loyalty. This idea that an immigrant can't be loyal to their new country is why the Japanese were interred during the second world war. People should be judged on their own actions, not convicted on the assumptions of others. 3. Pretty sure a Quebecois nationalist born in Canada who wants the destruction of Canada would not be deterred in their goal, even if they were forced to repeat an oath every four years, or so. Words do not loyalty make and only in the actions of people can their loyalty be determined. Some Conservatives on this board toss out accusations that liberals/progressives want to (already have) destroyed Canada. Calling people traitors and disloyal to Canada merely because they have a different political viewpoint seems to me part of the problem of polarization. Pretty sure that even if all liberal/progressives were video'd taking this oath, those conservatives willing to believe that a different political ideology is traitorous would not be convinced. Or, to be much more succinct, I don't think taking an oath guarantees loyalty, or would prove anything to people who are determined that certain groups are, by definition, disloyal or traitorous.

The proper use of the term 'traitor' is for someone who is guilty of a treason, as defined by the law of the country in which they live - Canadian definition below. Refusing an oath is not treasonous, in Canada, though I suppose a law could make it so. A true traitor would not, in my opinion, have any objection to taking an oath, so as not to draw attention to themselves. I wouldn't have any particular objection to taking an oath before voting. I can picture it now: additional voting delays as people mumble quickly through some words in front of bored officials. Treason (2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, (a) uses force or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Canada or a province; (b) without lawful authority, communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch, plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of Canada; (c) conspires with any person to commit high treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a); (d) forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by an overt act; or (e) conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that intention by an overt act.

There are conflicting claims floating about: 1. Majority of immigrants to Canada come from certain countries, and generally make less money, have poorer economic outcomes than the fewer immigrants from other countries; 2. Too many immigrants don't work at all, because they are part of family reunification programs; 3. Companies take advantage of immigrants to pay lower wages than they would otherwise pay; 4. Immigrant labour drives wages downward for all Canadians; 5. This high rate of immigration is driving the cost of housing into the stratosphere. So, how does one resolve these conflicts? If immigrants make less money than Canadians and drive wages down, how are they also supporting extremely high priced housing? I think the high prices are a result of foreign investment, local investment and, in some areas, money laundering.

I don't think the earth will explode; I think things would go along more or less as always -- except it'll be open season on immigrants, while green and social programs will become priority # last and second to last. This is not to say that Trudeau has done a stellar job, but at least he and Liberals say object to anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric (maybe Conservatives will start to now) and makes promises that we can try to hold him to when it comes to helping the less fortunate and doing less environmental damage. I do see more and more posts from people (not here) who say they would (and did) support the Conservative party until they demonstrated their disinterest in the environment and expressed attitudes toward immigrants/Muslims. There's even Muslims who'd like to vote Conservative because they more closely match their own more conservative views - but not while "niqab ban", "cultural report hotline" and refusing to condemn Islamophobia are so fresh in memory and they've done nothing to make anyone think they've changed at all. Pretty sure you are wrong there. Everyone keeps calling me a 'leftist', even though I've voted conservative in the past, and would again in the future if they weren't so wedded to the anti-immigrant, anti-environment policies.

Being "leftist" and all, I think I should point out that I agree - "cancelling" Canada day is the wrong thing to do. Are they going to actually cancel the day - as in, no stat holiday and not allowing anyone to have any kind of Canada Day related celebration? Or are they cancelling city-sponsored celebrations, and everyone else can do what they want? If its the latter, is it just for this year or permanently? If they're cancelling city-sponsored events for this year only, I kind of get that as a gesture. If this gesture is followed up by something substantial (no idea what a municipality might do), then ok. But if it's just a gesture - good for a news cycle and then they forget about it, then I think its nothing more than virtue signaling.

Yeah, only going by what the taxi driver said, and I think there was someone else who said the same. Anyway, we certainly don't have the full story yet, if we ever do.

Ok. This is just a a couple of times: There's plenty of examples like that, usually accompanied by posts detailing atrocities extremists have indulged in. Are you going to try another lie, here, or just admit you've been busted?

1. This government proposed a statement condemning Islmophobia. The Conservatives refused to support it. Now, a statement doesn't do much to stem hate, but at least it's taking some kind of stand. The Conservatives couldn't even bring themselves to do that much, because they know who their core support is. 2. Yes, the media reports on what is *unusual*, *dramatic*, *shocking*. People need to remember that, instead of thinking that things that are unusual and shocking are the whole story. This is not to downplay the terror, grief and pain suffered by the victims of these attacks; it just pays to remember that other Muslims suffered the same terror, grief and pain, and that, just like us, most of them deplore such attacks. 3. I can understand how service in Afghanistan has influenced your views about Islam and Muslims. I view you as someone who is passionate about what he believes, but is not unfair or unwilling to see both sides. Goddess has suffered mistreatment at the hands of Muslim, so I understand why it's hard for her to understand the difference between criticizing a religion and denigrating everyone in that religion. I have a sister who is Muslim, and I have met Muslims who are nothing like the stereotypes presented by Goddess, DoP, Argus and others; when these stereotypes are featured on this forum and it's implied (or even outright stated) that this is just how Muslims are I just don't find that acceptable. I don't enjoy these arguments online, and if I were a more polished speaker, I would probably do better at getting my points across. But just like I confronted a woman for verbally harassing and insulting a couple of immigrant women on the bus because they weren't speaking English, calling them names and making nasty assumptions about them, I can't stay silent when I see the same thing here. I don't think any of us are really bad, whether we're left/right/anti-Muslim or pro LGBTQ++. I am sure that Argus loves Canada just as I do and wants us and the country to be a beacon of freedom and success for the world; that Goddess would do anything to prevent women from being abused by men because their religious leaders teach them that it's acceptable. Were I a different person, I wouldn't be involved in such heated and sometimes unkind discussions. I am disappointed in myself, sometimes, for what/how I post, but I'd be even more disappointed if I ignored something that I truly believed was wrong, not just in fact but also in the impact it has on our larger society.

You have actually. You quote some Koranic scripture/hadith requiring them to kill some category of people, then you say "That's what a Muslim does. If they don't do it, they aren't following the commands of Allah, and aren't Muslim". Don't lie, you POS.

Yes, it would be interesting to know why they've made that determination so early. Wearing swastikas doesn't necessarily mean someone hates Muslims, does it? The police aren't going so far as to call it terrorism, though Trudeau has, unfortunately, especially if he has to backtrack as more information comes to light. The media has already interviewed people who knew the killer (though I can't find the link again), one of whom was from the Middle East or Africa apparently. I don't recall it saying if this friend was Muslim or not. It will be interesting how this plays out.

Ask the cops. They're claiming it.

The cops think so; they've specifically said that he targeted them because they were Muslim. "There is evidence that this was a planned, premeditated act and that the family was targeted because of their Muslim faith," said Waight. Maybe they'll change it later, who knows. But until they do, you have no basis for saying 'there's no evidence'. Stop lying.

He gets it; that disgusting religion - maybe somebody decided to do something about it. How is that any different than a Muslim, upon hearing about a terror attack saying "Yeah, it was wrong - but I get why they did it"? Would you accept that, or would you take it as proof positive that Muslims approve of terrorism. Keep in mind that you are one of those, who, whenever an Islamic terrorist blows stuff up, jump all over the rest of the Muslims for not saying/doing enough to prove they think terrorism is wrong. You ignore the many Muslims appearing in news stories condemning violence, the ones grieving with everyone else, offering comfort and aid, the religious leaders also condemning that violence - none of that is enough. But when the situation is reversed - when it's a White guy deliberately running over Muslims, explicit condemnation isn't required. One can even say "well, yah ... I can see why they did that", and that's ok with you. Anyway, I'm sure BC condemns this killing even though he didn't explicitly condemn; I'm sure he also 'gets' why the kid did it. But still, the kid wouldn't have had those reasons without people like Argus and DoP harping on how evil Muslims are. Note, I didn't say Argus and DoP specifically caused this - just the people who believe and talk like they do, in person and online.

And yes, Hamas deserves criticism. Should every Palestinian be judged as a mini-Hamas? Isreal has done some pretty horrific things too; is every Jew to be judged by what Isreal has done? Heck, Canada allowed/contributed to the death of 215 native children, at least! We've failed miserably in protecting native women and children right up until the present. Should we all be considered child-killers and abusers of women, then? Should people in other countries, who know almost nothing about our culture, look at us, as Canadians, and say "Gosh, these people support barbaric things like child-killing, rape and murder of Indigenuous people - maybe not all of them, but lots of them/most of them". Do you ever read the posts of Argus, or DoP? You certainly have liked/agreed with them. Because Argus has been arguing for years that we shouldn't accept Muslims from Muslim majority country, only Christians from those countries because Muslims aren't enough like us culturally. He doesn't care that the Christians in those countries share virtually all the same social beliefs that the Muslims do. He'll basically accept the same belief system if it's labeled "Christian" and reject it if its labeled "Muslim". And DoP keeps telling us that if a Muslim doesn't embrace murder/terrorism, either they just haven't gotten to it yet, or they aren't 'real Muslims'. They both clearly and specifically broadbrush Muslims; you support them and keep telling us that "we/they don't mean all of them". Now while I can believe *you* may not automatically believe the worst about any Muslim you meet or see on the street, I certainly don't believe it about some people who post here. Maybe you could pay attention to what it actually means when someone says "If she's wearing a hijab, she's extremist" and "If he doesn't believe in forced conversion, murdering gays he's not a real Muslim" and object to that, instead of attacking the people who are objecting to those kinds of bigotted (at best) statements. Otherwise, you look just like them.

Oh, how ... cute! And Adult! Well, I don't know about Yzermanius, but BCSapper certainly seemed to understand that the killer might have had enough and decided to do something about this disgusting religion, by killing a family. His exact words: How disgusting Islam is as a religion doesn't change because some extremist took into his own hands to do something about it, anymore than it does when a Sunni bastard blows up a Shia wedding. As Citizen noted: Yes while you are apparently condemning the evil coward who did it but at the same time trying to reason that maybe it stems from what you see as a disgusting faith which clearly the victims did not see it that way. You are using (abusing) freedom of speech to justify online hate. And then there's the history of some of these people - accepting without question any statement that denigrates Muslims in general, and attacking anyone who objects to such denigrating statements.

I don't think they understand the difference. For them, assuming that a woman with an hijab is either a) being forced/abused or b) if not, they are fanatic and cannot possibly be trusted not to suddenly turn into a murderous terrorist, seems to be the same as 'criticizing the religion'. They ignore, or dismiss as not actually Muslim, those who who really believe that Islam should not be forced, that tolerance is required, that murder/terrorism are wrong. Or they assume they're lying to fool 'us'. Nobody that I've talked to doubts that Muslims are more conservative than Westerners, but for the most part they're not a lot different than conservative Christians. Some take it too far, whether Christian or Muslim - which doesn't excuse either of them. We have laws in Canada, which both Muslims and Christians must follow. And both religions advise their followers to obey their country's laws - so neither Christians nor Muslims can claim their "religion" trumps the law of the land. It's certainly a valid criticism of Islamic countries whose laws are very repressive for women/gays/non-believers which they claim is based on "Islam". Muslim haters seem to think that means every Muslim in that country supports such oppression - and that is so far from the truth. To me, assuming all Muslims from X country must support the worst of their country's or fellow-Muslim's behavior is just wrong; there's many Muslims who want to get out of those countries and absolutely reject those oppressive laws and societal attitudes - but because the Muslim haters assume the worst is the "norm", they'd block those people from escape. Maybe the idea that there's a plurality of belief within a group is just too complex for these people.

They're all based on the Bible, consequently, they're all as false/true as anyone else's. I get that you believe your particular interpretation is actually the 'right' one, but nobody joins or sticks with a religion because it's the 'false' one. My former religion was the "right" biblical Christianity version, because we didn't celebrate birthdays, and didn't accept blood transfusions - supporting scriptures are Ecclesiastes 7:1, Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10-14, Acts 15:28-29. If you'll celebrate birthdays or accept a blood transfusion, perhaps you are in the false religion, after all.

1. Yes he did, see below. 2. No he didn't, see below. That's what his original post said; that's nothing like what you claimed he said. It's on the bottom of page 306, if you'd like to go back and read the conversation from the beginning, and understand what's actually been posted. Happy reading.