WestCanMan

Timothy McVeigh from wiki: Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American terrorist convicted[3] and executed[4] for the detonation of a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.[5] Commonly referred to as the Oklahoma City bombing, the attack killed 168 people and injured over 600.[6] According to the United States Government, it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United Statesprior to the September 11 attacks, and remains the most significant act of domestic terrorism in United States history. Public perception of TMV was that he was a terrorist. That's what they called him on the news. Prosecutors take whatever angle they can to get the best chances and highest penalty possible. If they charged him with committing a terrorist act maybe it's just one charge = one trial. Prosecutors commonly charge mass/serial killers with a few murders at a time so that if they wind up botching a trial they still have plenty more murders to charge them with the 2nd time, or the 3rd time, etc. If you want to think of D Roof as a terrorist, go ahead. I don't care. Terrorism is a series of acts of mass murder and destruction aimed at forcing people to step in line with a political/religious agenda. I just don't see a political goal, because he's not trying to get black people to start bleaching their skin. It's a hate crime. It is at least as bad, probably worse.

bush-cheney - that's not a very strong endorsement for Trump. Belly button lint has created more jobs than Justin Trudeau.

The apologists and the anti-"Islamophobia" crowd have lost all their steam. Not one of them has addressed the issue of siding with the prophet who committed the genocide in Bani Qurayza, or against his followers who committed genocide against the Buddhists or Hindus, or everyone else in the middle east.

Non-Muslim Americans and Canadians alike have been charged with and found guilty of committing terrorist acts when they committed terrorist acts. Timothy McVay in Oklahoma, the FLQ... In the case of Dwight Hammond and his son, they were charged under the terrorism act (USA) when they didn't even commit a terrorist act. They started some fires that spread from their farm onto gov't land. It was actually quite ridiculous, noone was hurt, noone was close to being hurt, there was never an attempt to injure anyone but they were charged with committing a terrorist act because prosecutors felt like it was their best chance to get a lengthy conviction. It shouldn't be up to me to teach you all of this. If you did a modicum of research to get up to speed on the topic and used a bit of common sense it would have saved you the trouble of writing your last 5 posts here.

I think Trudeau's only chance at coming close to balancing the budget is by taxing weed. I don't know why we wouldn't go that route as a nation. Everyone who wants to smoke it is already doing it anyways. Right now all the profits from weed go to the wrong people. We need to change it so that those profits go to the other wrong people and some of it goes to taxes.

From watching what is happening to the 1st Nations in Canada I almost feel like the easiest way to kill a culture is with welfare. People grow up on the reserves knowing that they don't have to do well in school, in sports, in the trades, or in any facet of the workforce in order to get food and shelter. They feel more boredom than adversity and bored youths of any race, culture or creed are a recipe for disaster. I've seen white people grow up with the same "problem". They have well-off parents and they know that they will inherit a home and some money when they get older so their life strategy revolves around waiting for their inheritance. If you don't feel like you ever need to save up a down-payment it's easy to spend $10/day on cigs, keep the fridge stocked with booze, and just party and pay rent for 25 years. By the time they get an inheritance they have no idea how to manage money and it's gone almost as fast as it came. It's really sad for the first nations people and I don't know the answer to any of these problems. The last thing that first nations people want is my version of a solution anyways and I don't blame them.

Wow eyeball. Maybe they will even start killing Hindus. No, I guess not, they didn't have anything to do with the American interference in the middle east. Oh hold on a sec. They already killed several millions. Maybe they will start killing Buddhists. No, I guess not, they didn't have anything to do with the American interference in the middle east. Oh hold on a sec. They already killed several millions. I'm pretty sure you have access to a computer, and google. Why do you continue to try to find excuses for muslim genocide? Mohammed committed genocide before Columbus sailed to N.A., and it has been a muslim tradition ever since. Just because you don't give a rip about Hindu, Buddhist or Jewish genocides doesn't mean nobody else does. The rule of thumb all over the world is where Muslims get a bit of power over people, they give them the choice to die or accept Islam.

lol.

For your edification: The flq weren't interested in killing people for being of a certain race. They were killing people who were trying to advance a different political agenda. Do what we say or civilians die - terrorism 101 vs You are a member of the wrong race, you die - hate crime 101 Those are not the same, despite the fact that they are equally heinous and involve murder. This isn't rocket science. If you are a prosecutor you pick the charge you can present to the court with the highest chance of victory. Not the one that sounds cooler, or more diabolical.

People here aren't charged with being members of ISIS. They are charged when there is evidence that they have a plan to commit a terror attack. If they are doing it on home soil that evidence has to be substantial, and include the collection/assembly of materials and weapons to facilitate the attack. I'll say it again because for some reason you failed to understand the first perfectly clear explanation: The charges against D Roof are for "hate crimes" because that is exactly what they were. All the evidence and sworn statements lead to an easy victory for the prosecution if they go that route. The evidence required to give him a speeding is far less, but they don't have a case for that so they are going with the "hate crime" charges, even though they require a lot more evidence. Terrorism charges might be similar in a lot of ways, but D Roof wasn't killing black people to make them scared and further some political or religious agenda. He was killing them because they were black. Hate crime 101.

Yes it does, that is exactly what it means. Only a small percentage of people get off their asses. IE, for every single person that shows up hundreds more feel the same way. It's a proven statistic and easily understandable from a common sense pov. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good argument. Furthermore, if the moderates have such a huge advantage in numbers then what would they have to fear? The crazies are just a small minority compared to moderates according to you. No comment. Oh yes he does. Almost everyone in North America does. Just think how far we are from this scenario in North America: 1) A woman is given the death penalty for wearing a niqab. 2) The premier of Saskatchewan says "that penalty is too harsh". 3) The premier is murdered for making that comment. 4) The murderer gets the death penalty. 5) An angry mob of 25,000 Canadians turns up to burn cars to protest the execution of the murderer of the Premier of Saskatchewan - because that's the biggest problem in this entire screwed up scenario. Yes, Donald Trump is a messiah compared to that swarm of losers, and Donald Trump is a loser by north american standards.

Oil is a new twist in an old story. Noone knew that Oil would ever be of such significance when jihad and the crusades started. The shia and sunnis have been fighting each longer since long before Oil was of any importance. Jews, christians, muslims, protestants and catholics were killing each other before anyone ever dreamed oil would become a factor. Oil plays a part in every minute of our waking lives, but it wasn't the "start" of this at all. If Oil suddenly becomes irrelevant religions of the world will still be at war with each other for control of our minds (lives, money...).

eyeball you have just proven with that statement that you don't know the basics of Islam. It's starting point. It's pillars. It's fundamentals. You are seriously engaging in a topic with your firm stance and absolutely no clue what you are talking about. That's awesome. Read up about the origins of Islam. Of Mohammed. Then come back to this.

You need to understand that when 25,000 __________s gather in one place and engage in _____________, there are other protests all over the place, and there are zero people showing up from the other side, what that represent is a cross-section of the whole society. How many things have you felt strongly for or against? Do you show up at a rally for every single one of them? No, of course not. You have a job or go to school, you have family commitments, other interests, or other valid reasons to not attend such as distance or cost to get there, etc. For every person who shows up to start fires because of that event, there are several hundreds more who felt the same way but didn't make it to the event. Those tens of thousands of people are showing up to cause mayhem to protest the execution of a murderer. The murdered man was a governor. He was murdered for speaking against anti-blasphemy laws. Those anti-blasphemy laws got a christian woman the death penalty, but there were no riots there. Do you not see an enormous, gargantuan, preposterous problem with that? She dies for saying words. Yay. Man gets murdered for saying that's too harsh. Yay. Man executed for murdering a man for sticking up for a woman. RIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOT! BURRRRRRRRRN! HAAAAAAAAAAATE! That's not "just 25,000 idiots". That's not like a small group of clowns handing out flyers. That is proof of mass insanity. Jaceee I'm pretty sure that you consider yourself a liberal. What would you think of your fellow citizens if that played out in your neighbourhood? I bet you hate Trump, and he's so liberal compared to those idiots that he looks like a messiah.

Ok, my bad. I don't get on here very often and it gets confusing trying to piece together all the different conversations going on.

Re: Dylann Roof, from wikipedia: "He also faces federal hate crime charges, for which he faces the death penalty. His trial in state court will start on July 11, 2016." It's important for 99% of Americans that Dylann Roof gets what's coming to him. The prosecutors in his trial will surpass the legendary failure status of Clark & Darden if they can't get the death penalty for him. They will select the best possible set of charges to attain their goal. There is no political or religious agenda behind his actions, it's just the murder of another race of humans. That crime specifically falls under the category of hate crime, and thus he is being tried there. If they tried to call his crime something that it wasn't, that would obviously hurt their chances of winning.

If jihad was invented after 1949 I would believe you. The ISIS playbook comes from the origin of Islam.

The advance of the right is a natural reaction to the rise of abhorrent violence, and to our Prime Minister's refusal to acknowledge any dangers whatsoever from his brothers. The people who you accuse of being in "the advance of the right" are the people who appreciate the society that we live in and want to protect it. The rise of leftist naivete & stupidity is even more dangerous. I was among those who thought that when Obama was elected it would be a good thing to quell racism in the US. Turns out Obama just fanned the flames by publicly applauding criminal demonstrations and making stupid comments like "it could have been me". He never says a word about "respecting police" or even "not murdering them" and the supposed liberals on the left just smile and wave. Trudeau is doing the exact same thing here with respect to the rise of Mohammedan extremism. He's completely ignoring things like dangers and consequences in favour of playing the politically correct buffoon role. His family isn't in danger from terrorists, he's their hero. But innocent Canadians will die as a result of his stupidity and the lefties will scatter blame in every direction but the bullseye. We need to leave behind the liberals and the conservatives and find the pragmatics. EG: What's an actual solution to Syrian refugees? Liberals: Bring in as many muslim refugees as you can. My kindergarten teacher taught me that all cultures are equal and therefor the muslims from the world's foremost terrorist hotbed are going to fit in here just the same as some Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists would. Pay no heed to the fact that we are running a massive deficit and can't afford the $1,000,000,000 price tag. We can cut costs by forgetting our other election promises (lmao at the 18-25 yr olds who voted for Trudeau) and abandoning our military. We will leave the Christians and Yazidis to die like dogs because it's not as politically correct to save them as it is to save the muslims right now. Conservatives: Don't allow any muslims into the country no matter what. Just save the christians. More bombs on Syria = less problems. Pragmatic: Set up un safe havens in syria and Iraq and give the people food and aid there. Use the massive tent cities in Saudi Arabia to house the people who have fled to keep them safe. Recruit and train military and police from the ranks of the refugees to guard the UN safe havens. Don't tell me that the UN and NATO can't carve out a few firebases to guard some safe havens. Honestly, saving the people who were allowed to or able to flee isn't all that honourable. It's ridiculous that genocide is still occurring in 2016 with all the firepower available to the UN. It's also ridiculous that we just have to give out food and shelter that we can't afford.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Yes, the gov't there drafted legislation against violence towards women, but the article clearly shows that the population is against it. Burning cars, etc? You see that a man was murdered for criticizing the anti-blasphemy laws, and when his murderer was executed, the widespread political will at the grassroots level is that the murderer shouldn't have been executed? This article clearly portrays moderate muslims have good reason to live in fear there. I'm not sure how you can see that any other way.

If they commit acts of terrorism do you think that they won't be?

When Christians take slaves, marry young children or behead prisoners of war they are not emulating Jesus Christ. When Muslims take slaves, marry young children or behead prisoners of war they are following the exact path of Mohammed. You could make a strong argument that followers of ISIS are "more Muslim" than the moderates.

I live in an area that's got an enormous indo-Canadian population. There have been a lot of Chinese coming here in recent months as well. To be certain there will be a few bad apples in every bunch, just like there were in my high school, but the only real barriers I ever see are language-related. I see in everyone the desire to contribute to society and I see more than just "tolerance" here. I see acceptance and even people celebrating along with other cultures. Diwali, Christmas, Chinese new year... I doubt there's a stat out there that says Asians don't do well economically here. Their real estate purchases are the backbone of the BC economy. I don't think it's impossible for our liberal society here to eventually fail. I think we have our choice of accepting decent people from all over the world. I don't know why we would scrape the bottom of the barrel. The absolute last people that we want to bring in here are terrorists or sympathizers and there's absolutely no doubt we are getting a lot of sympathizers at the very least.

Christianity is evolving, it has been for centuries. All the main groups coming out of it share less hostile beliefs than those in the old testament. Maybe that's due to the fact their spiritual leader is reputed to have done good things when he walked the earth. Islam isn't evolving, and the splinter groups are almost always more depraved than the bulk of society. Furthermore, all the muslim countries that attempt moderation inevitably lapse back into old-world immorality. Maybe that's due to the fact that their spiritual leader reputedly, and unapologetically tended to do things like marry young children, and take slaves and preside over actions like the genocide of the Banu Qurayza when he walked the earth. Can a man really call a guy like that a prophet and then come to the conclusion that committing similar acts is immoral or evil? That was a rhetorical question, I know that there isn't a hope in hell you will answer that. When Khudi tackles the sensitive issue of whether or not beheading whole towns was actually bad, and their collective peer pressure is enough to force radicalism into the shadows, I will believe that Islam has found a cure for the demented wild dog factions of Islam. The world is clearly not seeing that right now, is it slick? Look at the view from 20,000 feet, not the view from "my next-door neighbour has never tried to commit genocide, they are probably all the same". Specific ares of moderation are nice and all, but clearly the moderates aren't nearly strong enough to clean up Islam's back yard. They seem to just run and look the other way, camouflaging the radicals as they spread out.

Riiiight. And can you explain to me how anyone is going to tell a billion muslims that they're doing it all wrong? That their prophet was doing it wrong?

Your logic is wrong, and it's all over the place. 1) when some idiot kills cops that come to arrest them that is in no way comparable to terrorists looking for people to kill in the name of their religion. 2) you've got: two crackpots acting in isolated incidents with absolutely no backing whatsoever from any one of the 40 Million Canadians vs 2 attackers from a population of less than 1 million that has moderate amounts of active supporters and a large number of sympathizers. plus there are even more would-be attackers who have been stopped short of successfully committing acts of terrorism. So you see slick, there's an enormous community with almost no terrorists and even less support vs a small group with several terrorists and they are embraced by their community to a sickening extent. 3) I didn't see anyone saying that we need to ban muslims from entering the country, but taking in massive numbers from the world's leading terrorist hotbed is just stupid.