Goddess

This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you - being arrested under the mental health act is NOT A DIAGNOSIS of any kind of mental illness. Being apprehended under the mental health act could be anything from shooting up a McDonald's to freaking out on a cashier at a place of business. I'm willing to wait and see what the official reports indicate. Why aren't you?

Just curious whether you have a country that you would rather have as a neighbour, as opposed to Canada?

Internationally, English is a pretty important language to learn. It's one of the official languages of Canada, despite pockets of population that speak mainly another language. As a personal anecdote - my ex-MIL immigrated to Canada from Italy in the '50's and never learned much English. She was a stay-at-home mom to 6 kids and mostly just hung around other Italians. It probably didn't affect her life too much until her children started marrying Canadian English-speaking spouses and they started having English-speaking children. It was sad that she couldn't communicate much with her grandchildren. I could tell it held her back socially, too, the longer she was in Canada. If immigrants choose to not learn the language, not integrate into Canadian life and only hang out within their own ethnic group, that's their choice. But you don't get to whine about not being accepted by Canadians then. I'm not saying one or the other is right or wrong. It's just the way it is.

It's not a fact. You don't know and neither do I. When and if the diagnosis is made public in a report on the incident, then it will be a fact. Bissonette was purported to be mentally ill, too, and ended up just pleading straight guilty. And so is the desperateness of Islamophiles who insist that terrorism has its root cause in mental illness and has nothing at all to do with Islamic ideology.

We all agreed that the family put out a statement purporting his mental illness. Your claim was that there was an actual diagnosis. You have yet to prove that. Put up or shut up.

Your link does not prove what you think it does. It does not say what those 2 apprehensions were about. Being apprehended under the mental health act is not a diagnosis. Again, a statement from the family through a paid shill who was revealed to have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Also not a diagnosis.

I think this needs to be reiterated. Canada ranks consistently as one of the most tolerant populations on the planet, while Muslim lands consistently rank as the least tolerant. And yet some are trying to convince us that Canadians are the least tolerant and Muslim nations are the most tolerant.

Don't worry. They don't.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/fatah-coming-soon-believe-it-or-not-islamic-party-of-ontario?fbclid=IwAR3ClHo4_MsmH4l1lJcVYjyV2hIFYigj5tgf0frIikLxfwb0Td5Ya2Pbi74#comments The Islamic Party of Ontario - coming soon. The founder of the party - Jawed Anwar - started the new year by threatening Tarek Fatah and the LGBQ community in Canada: http://news.acdemocracy.org/islamic-party-of-ontario-warns-lgbtq-of-death-penalty-in-islam/ All human beings are equal and sons and daughters of same father and mother, Adam and Eve. The better among us are those who have more fear of Allah. A strict law will be suggested to ban blasphemy of any religious (all) symbols and personalities. The last two platforms I found on their website,so I didn't include in the quote. Hopefully it works out better for us than in Belgium: https://www.rt.com/news/425281-belgium-islam-party-segregation/

No, we don't. We have claims from his family and a paid shill. And the police say he was involved in 2 incidents, but don't elaborate on what those incidents were. He wasn't on any kind of watch list for either extremism or mental illness so it could have been nothing more than him beaking off too much at a cashier or store clerk and the police were called. We don't know.

No. And neither do you. I don't have to "imagine" there is a difference medically and legally. There is.

I don't believe all terrorist are mentally ill.

I hope you're not wearing any cotton/poly blends.....according to Leviticus 19:19 you are not to mix fabrics. Unless you're a cherry-picker when it comes to commandments in Leviticus.......

Smarten up. It's never clever to pretend to be stupid.

My personal favourite was the person who stated the belief that all terrorists are mentally ill because why else would someone want to kill random people? Like killing for money or in a fit of jealous rage or for religious zealotry has never happened in the history of the world before..... It doesn't get much more apologetic than that.

Sorry, Argus.

I would like to add that although Dia has labelled me "conservative", I show up squarely liberal on every survey, I view myself as liberal. The liberal viewpoint is that the rights of minorities should be protected. But I don't believe that means that ALL beliefs must be protected and defended. Especially beliefs that are just as illiberal as Christian fundamentalism. There is an inordinate amount of chaos springing from the Muslim world. Whether this is due to political, social or economic issues or whether this is due to specific religious doctrines, I don't know. I suspect it's a bit of all and am not as quick to dismiss specific religious doctrines as being a cause, as some others are. While many Muslims are peaceful and wouldn't dream of violence, it doesn't erase the violence and calls to martyrdom and jihad against unbelievers in the Koran. There is a lot of violence endorsed by the Koran and to say that Muslim groups like ISIS and Al Quaeda are un-Islamic is being grossly dishonest. ISIS puts out very accurate statements quoting the Koran that completely fit their actions. I understand that if you're a Muslim who has had your city and family bombed by the US, you would hate the Americans and want to fight them. But I don't understand how enslaving and raping 9 year old Yazidi girls protests American actions. Or by forcing non-Muslims to pay jizya or convert or be crucified publicly. Or beheading Shias or apostates who have left Islam. These aren't the reactions of someone who is just unhappy with US foreign policy. To deny the religious and doctrinal basis for these actions is foolish, IMO. There are words in the Koran that command, verbatim, what we see Islamists doing. The question everyone is afraid to ask (and answer) is: Why do people prone to violence find Islam so appealing for their purpose? When people say, "I'm doing this in the name of Allah" and quote verses - "Strike the disbelievers from the neck and strike them from every finger tip!" and they are doing that very thing - why do Westerners believe, No! It must be politics! No! It must be mental illness! No! It must be a video game they were playing! We never deny the political grievances. So why deny that the religion itself, the verses themselves can be a driver in these atrocities? An example: When Pakistan banned YouTube for a viral film that mocked the Prophet. If they had told the people, "We're banning YouTube to quash political dissent." (which was the truth) there would have been an uproar. But instead, they told the people, "We're banning YouTube to stop blasphemy against our beloved Prophet." and not a peep was heard from the public. The divinity and infallibility of the Koran is about the only thing every denomination and sect in Islam agree on. As Ali Rizvi (an athiest Muslim) described it: The Muslim Brotherhood LOVES the word Islamophobia. Muslim reformers, almost to a person, know Its only purpose is to censor criticism of Islam. When you fall for that, you're not helping to curb terrorism. You're a victim of it. I remember reading one Muslim reformist who said, "There are many voices that need to be heard in this conversation". Shutting down the voices you just don't like or want to hear is very Islamist.

Maybe just say that, then. Because as soon as you start claiming that Western countries are exactly the same as Muslim countries, that's when there are arguments.

You must be offended. You're here loudly declaring us all morally repugnant.

Interestingly, there are 2 news articles out of Egypt today about continued attacks on Christians. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46702301 https://globalnews.ca/news/3938036/cairo-coptic-church-shooting/ Perhaps they are not as tolerant of other religions in Muslim countries as you think.

Well, all I have so far is you offering up the JW's as proof and a claim that "MANY" in Christianity practice avoiding unbelievers. Which goes against what I can see with my own eyes and against what I have experienced. Sorry that you are so offended that I don't just take your word for it.

A few Christians from a couple of wonky cults that are viewed as morons by the rest of Chritianity does not prove your claim that "Many religions advise their adherents to avoid unbelievers; be friendly, they say - but do not become close. Islam isn't particularly unusual in that regard." Avoiding unbelievers is much more mainstream in Islam than it is in Christianity. You can't name one mainstream Christian sect that practices avoidance of outsiders and you can't name one Muslim controlled country that practices tolerance and acceptance of other religions. The fact that you deny that continually and insist that Western countries are exactly the same as Muslim controlled countries is.......just bizarre. You continually portray one-off situations of intolerance in Western countries as being the norm and one-off situations of Muslim tolerance in any country as the norm. Neither is true and so blatantly dishonest that I also sometimes wonder if you are nothing more than a mouthpiece for Islam.

You have said so in virtually every conversation we've had about it. The last statement I recall from you was "if a woman chooses to wear it as a fashion statement, I view it is a slap in the face of all the women who are forced." You said a few months ago that you weren't so concerned about protecting women's rights because you consider the hijab as an "expression of Islamic extremism" and feel its justified to ban it on that basis. Again, you take my words and turn them into "Every woman in a hijab is an extremist or abused." Not what I said. Nor did I say I was unconcerned about protecting women's rights. I said the rights of the majority of women should come before the rights of a minority who insist on promoting a practice that is harmful to women and that is a slap in the face to all the women who are forced. Nowhere did I say "Every woman in a hijab is an extremist and abused." It's because your statement itself is "over-the-top" and false.

This is more evidence of your lying and misrepresenting. Dog doesn't post the verses to "prove Muslims are all violent and hateful" And he has never denied that the verses about peace are also there. The problem is you perceive any criticism of Muslims or Islam as evidence that the person is morally bankrupt. That's a pretty extreme view, Dia. but it's about white people, so I guess you're allowed. I have also never said that every woman in a hijab is an extremist or abused - another of your lies. Meltdown? Take a good look at yourself before you go pointing the finger at others. You regularly meltdown over the slightest critique of Islam. Good gawd, how many meltdown have you had wringing your hands over your belief that Canada is going to send Muslims to the ovens any minute now!!!!