notca

Jesus told us to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's". In other words, obey the law of the land and obey God's law as an individual in your private life. However, God's law as we call it is not a 'law'. It is advice on how to conduct ourselves if we want health, successful lives. Along with His advice God gave us free will to obey his advice or to not obey at our own risk. When did Jesus ever condemn homosexuality? It was condemned by prophets and the apostles, never by Jesus Himself. If Jesus did not condemn it then it is not subject to condemnation by other human beings.

Has 'my side' , those evil imperialist warmongers, recruited somebody or tried to incite somebody to commit a terror attack? I must have missed that.

Hah! I see, Because the authorities aren't using their noggins.

How so? I haven't seen anyone here recruiting for terrorists or promoting terror attacks.

I think left wing is socialist, idealogical. They believe government should look after people, that all people should be treated equally, those who are irresponsible, lazy, dishonest and possess a criminal mentality should be protected from any consequences of their behaviors, that the wealthy should share with and provide for the poor. Right wing believes in individual responsibility, law and order, less dependency on government, family values and free enterprise. The truth is that both right and left seem to lean too much to far. Try rowing a boat with only one paddle, it will go in circles. Take one wing off a bird or an aircraft and it will crash. .

I believe there likely are sleeper cells in NA and all over the western world. I believe that intelligence knows where a lot of them are. But the question is, why are they allowed to remain? Of course, because our Constitutions prevent us from assuming guilt and no one can be arrested for what he is likely to do. Shortly after 9/11 it was aired that a certain Mosque in Montreal was recruiting youth for terrorism. There were flicks on tv of the RCMP surveilling the Mosque and listening to what was being said inside. As usual the stories were never followed up, just left to fall by the wayside and be forgotten So the next question is, if intelligence has known that sleeper cells and recruiting stations exist, why hasn't there been an amendment to the law to make it possible for anyone known to be connected to terrorists to be arrested, interrogated and possible detained or deported? Why can a law be passed to require internet site providers to report and block any user who is engaged in promoting and/or recruiting for terrorism? I haven't visited any such sites myself but I have heard enough about them to believe that they are operating freely. Freedom of speech does not wash in this matter. It is against the law to promote hate or incite to riot which is what sites like that do. So why are they allowed to operate? Anyone got answers?

The OT of the Bible is just as violent and 'not God-like' as the Qu'ran but at least the prophets who wrote their brutal instructions were consistent. Fortunately, Jesus Christ amended and revised those cruel admonitions and gave us a kinder gentler way of living and incite into the nature of a loving God the Father who understands our human frailties and forgives our sins. The Qu'ran has no such revision. It remains a blueprint for mayhem and murder.

We have so-called 'moderate Muslims' telling us that the extremists are not Muslims, that is not Islam. We have extremist Muslims telling us that moderate Muslims are not Muslims, that is not Islam. Who is a non-Muslim to believe? The both follow the Qu'ran. So I began reading the Qu'ran for myself years ago when all this terrorist BS first began. I have read enough of it to see that Mohammed must have been schizophrenic. He says one thing and then contradicts what he has said in another place. I came to believe that this Mohammed guy who was dictating the Qu'ran to scribes (because he couldn't write himself) was making it up as he went along. When he was in a mellow mood (not very often!) he was kind of tolerant. When he was in a mean mood he was violent. I wouldn't believe a word he said. His pontifications are goofier than those of the OT. Would any thinking person who claims to believe in an all powerful God believe that God cares how we dress, what we eat, that we must eat different foods off different dishes, who we associate with, how many times a day we pray, whether we shave off all of our hair or wear beards. Why did God create pigs if they are so filthy and offensive? Why did God create 'infidels'? Just so Muslims would have somebody to hate and kill? Would a God condone raping little female children? Old men marrying females children? Would God make women attractive and alluring only to order them to cover up their attractiveness? Would God keep an inventory of virgins on hand to reward good Muslims who blow themselves up? It all seemed to me like the ramblings of a madman! So which sect of Muslims should we believe? Personally I would not believe any of them. I think they are all delusional.

People have been dying for centuries as a result of events that preceded their dying. It is a pattern that has been repeated over and over since time began. It isn't something new. That is how we can see that what is happening now is the same old, same old that has always been, and always will be because we never get smart enough to change the pattern and nip it in the bud. I'm sorry you see it as preaching. That is not my intention. I AM listening to everything I can put my ears to that is going on in the world and simply expression the impressions I am getting from it all. How, exactly have you been 'converted'?

You are entitled to you opinion as we all are. I respect that. But I still disagree. Countries that have been fighting within forever need to start finding a way to solve their own problems and start living peacefully with each other. They will never do that if they are constantly bailed out by foreigners who take them in. They are like adult children who constantly get into trouble and get their parents to fix it for them so they can go ahead and get into more trouble. As for the interference by North Americans into their country, they are always happy to take monetary aid. They never tell us to 'stay out'. No country can interfere in another sovereign nation unless they are allowed to. And remember, in most cases it was the UN that wanted 'America to send troops' whenever trouble broke out anywhere in the world. Somehow Turkey and Jordon (and a few other Mid-eastern countries have lived in peace for quite a while now. How did they manage it? If the warring countries really wanted peace they could take a lesson. Turkey is now having trouble with terrorists too. No other western country has interfered in Turkey that I know of. I also think that your understanding of history purely from living memory makes your understanding limited. What is happening in our time is NOT history, it is what has evolved from history. When you know what has led up to events of the past and it has happened in the same way time after time throughout the ages, it is a sure bet that the same preliminaries will bring about those same events again. And that is what is happening now.

I suppose your view is shared by many. It seems so. But you must be referring to the refugees. Surely you don't think any outside action, right or wrong, was responsible for the creation of ISIS! And it IS ISIS that the refugees claim to be fleeing from. The Syrian government, brutal as it is, is nothing new in the Mid-east. Many of the Mid-eastern countries are run by dictators under Islamic law. And I really can't believe that America was the cause of the conflicts there because those conflicts have existed since the beginning of time. Long before America ever entered the picture. Before there even was an America. What country could be more dictatorial and cruel to its citizens than Saudi Arabia, the country that America protects from its enemies? You may very well be right and I may very well be wrong but that's what I think. Islam is a domineering religion that makes slaves of its followers and its followers have split into so many different sects that hate each other, I believe that is what is at the root of the conflict. ISIS is just another sect seeking to dominate. I think that in accepting large numbers of Muslims we are accepting many different sects of Islam that are predisposed to fighting each other and other religions/non-religions as well. That is the understanding I have come to from much reading on the history of Islam.

I have wondered the very same things. Why the half-hearted attacks on ISIS that the allies have engaged in? Their initial response to ISIS was to 'contain' them. They should have known that would not work. To fight an enemy the only thing to do is to be serious about it and do it effectively or not at all. The lame efforts to contain ISIS did make the coalition appear weak. All that has been accomplished is to keep the pot boiling and extend the conflict. ISIS is not going to go away. Whether we plink away at them endlessly with air strikes or go all out to eliminate them, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are going to be lost. My preference would be to strike fast, strike hard and eliminate them the sooner the better. In the doing, there would be fewer innocent lives lost in the long run than if ISIS is allowed to continue.

Yes, perhaps. But what thread? My first hand example of changed feelings is the terrible decision I had to make to take my mother off life support. Not relevant to this thread, but a perfect example of the conflict between doing what the heart tell us and what the head dictates must be done.

A very good idea. But it didn't work so well in Paris, did it? History should have taught us by now that the only way to ensure victory over a ruthless aggressor is to counter attack, strike fast and strike hard. Negotiations do not work, containment doesn't work. I don't know that it is the best thing to 'quietly accept that they are going to do this". If we know they are going to do this, and we do know that, hundreds killed and maimed at one attack is too many to quietly accept. Our security forces are excellent but there is only so much they can do to protect us. They do slip through the cracks. We have threats to our safety enough within our own population of crazies. Does it make sense to allow crazies from outside to creep up on us too? I respect a respectful rebuttal.

Yes, And then changes his feelings.

Maybe you make some valid points there. But what is done is done and can't be undone. The issue of the day is what to do about the present dilemma facing us. If past mistakes led us to the position of danger that we now find ourselves in what would you suggest? That we just lay down arms and surrender? Would you agree to saying to the enemy, "We realize we made you what you are, therefore we will allow you to attack us at will?

What people 'feel' and what is prudent cam be very different. When the heart and the head are in conflict one has to assess which is the right thing to do and that is not easy. To make prudent decisions on world affairs one has only to look at how the world operates. It is a world of reality, not ideology; reality where the aggressors take what they want because the people who act on their tender feelings allow them to do so. Is that the kind of people we want to be? Passive to the point of submission? There are two kinds of feeling; those that are realistic and come from the head and those that are ideological and come from the heart. The feelings that Trump appeals to are the former.

Exactly! And that's what gets politicians elected.

Has anyone considered that America's first responsibility is to her own people? That applies to every other country too that is so eager to take in the refugees. Both America and Canada have unresolved issues with homeless and destitute people of our own who cannot scratch out a living, find an affordable place to live, get competent care for their physical/mental problems. Yet they can spend hundreds of millions of $ to help the refugees. These governments, just like so many individuals, seem to find it much easier to solve other people's problems than they do to solve their own. Make a list: On one side list the pros of bringing in refugees. On the other side list the cons. There are a lot more 'cons' than 'pros'. The only real pro is the emotional fervor from seeing pictures of a dead child. Saying the refugees will be good for the economy is pure BS, justification for a lost cause. The list of 'cons' would be much, much longer. There is danger, cost, lack of housing accomodations, backlash from the opposing factions, and more. These refugees have lived in war torn countries all their lives. Why are they suddenly fleeing en masse? Is there not a possibility that it is a 'Trojan horse' designed to inflate the Muslim population to the point where they will have the upper hand? Knee jerk reactions to what is perceived as a 'crisis' don't usually end well.

Trump is retaining his popularity. Now could that just be because he is saying what a lot of Americans would like to say if they hadn't been muzzled by PC? Maybe a lot of people do feel that the world has gone too soft on terrorists and criminals. Maybe a lot of people do feel like incurable child molesters and psychopathic killers SHOULD be put to death. Maybe a lot of people do feel like Muslims should be watched and kept a under close scrutiny. Maybe a lot of people do feel it should be told like it is, and not what sounds 'nice'. I think if Donald Trump ever got elected to be POTUS you all would at least see some positive, resolute action take place on serious, controversial matters. Not like the run-of-the-mill world leaders like today who talk out of both sides of their mouth at once and don't really accomplish anything.

Yes. The Italians and Jews aren't destructive, disruptive people. No other race, culture, ethnicity causes the problems that a race/culture enslaved by an archaic, barbaric religion does. When I lived in Winnipeg it was the most culturally diverse city in Canada. There were ethnic communities but they didn't fight each other and they interacted with each other. Toronto is now more diverse that any other city except perhaps Montreal, and the ethnic areas are socially isolated from one another by their own choice. My son lives in Toronto so don't get the idea I don't know what it's like there. He married into an Indian family and is now divorced. His current partner is Chinese. Both his ex-inlaws and his current girlfriend and her family feel the same as I do. I am not making up stories. Yes the food is good in Toronto if you like ethnic foods. It is impossible to find a restaurant that serves traditional Canadian cuisine of roast beef and mashed potatoes.

They may be citizens but they are probably the offspring of Muslim immigrants who have passed on the militant ways of Muslims. I think Hollande is right to strip them of their French citizenship. Anyone who thinks fighting with ISIS is a good thing should be stripped of his citizenship and sent to wherever he can find an ISIS stronghold. Any country would do well to take that path. Our PM is wrong to say that 'a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian' regardless. Canadians who have traitorous intentions against Canada are not equal to the average Canadian and don't deserve their citizenship. That is only common sense.

Why do you accuse me personally of calling them savages and of painting them all with the same brush? I was just playing devil's advocate here explaining why so many people feel that way. However, I do think that Muslims fail to make effort enough to fit into our society. It takes two sides, you know, to reach a compromise. Immigrants in the past have made great efforts to 'fit in'. It was the unified efforts of so many different cultures working together toward a common society that made Canada such a desirable place to live. Some have even gone so far as to change their names to sound more 'Canadian'. Muslims appear to flaunt their differences and while they have that right, in a free society, it does rankle a lot of people especially other immigrants who have gladly made personal sacrifices out of thankfulness to be here.

Why do you accuse me personally of calling them savages and of painting them all with the same brush? I was just playing devil's advocate here explaining why so many people feel that way. However, I do think that Muslims fail to make effort enough to fit into our society. It takes two sides, you know, to reach a compromise. Immigrants in the past have made great efforts to 'fit in'. It was the unified efforts of so many different cultures working together toward a common society that made Canada such a desirable place to live. Some have even gone so far as to change their names to sound more 'Canadian'. Muslims appear to flaunt their differences and while they have that right, in a free society, it does rankle a lot of people especially other immigrants who have gladly made personal sacrifices out of thankfulness to be here. I might add that the brutal things that happen in in the 'so-called civilized western societies" are illegal and punishable by law, not sanctioned by law as they are in the Islamic countries.

Of course it did! Muslims are the only ones who wear the niqab.