Goddess

Then how is it that every time there's a terror incident involving Islam, none of them ever give "poverty" as a reason for their actions? When they state their reason is for their religion, why do you disagree with them?

No, this is why I come here. C'mon! Lighten up! That was really clever.

First of all, (9/11) I'm not (evil West) Christian. Nor am I (WTCB7) wholesome or (millions of Muslim deaths) saintly. Secondly, (everyone is a hypocrite) I wasn't alive (9/11 coverup) during a First Nation (the UK are the real terrorists) genocide. I hope I captured it all for you.

Oh, it is! For sure. I just don't have the mental capacity that you do to link the topic of marrying underage children to First Nations genocide.

The mental gymnastics you go through to tie 9/11 and the evil West into any topic is really quite amazing.

I meant the wider Christian community. I think you knew that, you just like to argue.

The difference being that when the Creston Christians marry children, they're not applauded by the community.

Sort of like in Muslim countries where everyone brings their kids out to watch the big beheading! It's so exciting, most of them video it on their phones for later viewing. No, thanks.

I believe that some things are "hard-wired" into us, as humans. The majority of humans do not murder, rape, steal from others, etc, not because a law or a holy book forbids it, but because it feels wrong and we have empathy for fellow humans. Where this disconnects: is with humans who (for whatever reason, and I think there are many) lack empathy. The other disconnect is in regard to religion. I don't know WHY but people can turn away from their "human-ness" when instructed by religion to do so. For example: I don't believe most men either want or prefer to have sex with small girls. But if a religion tells them it's okay and even preferred, then for some reason it overrides the natural empathy we have, they go along with it. Another: it's not natural for parents to reject their own children. But in the name of religion, they will shut their hearts down and disown them.

You know, if someone else made an outlandish claim and then said "Yeah, I can't prove it, just trust me",...... YOU would be screeching about how they are liars and dishonest and demand they leave the forum. This is what is most irritating about Muslims. The rules they impose on others, somehow never apply to themselves.

My courses in Human Resources did not cover anything 9/11 that I recall......I don't think it was done out of "fear" though..... I wanted to pass the courses, and using Wiki was an automatic fail, so yes, I didn't use Wiki. No one did. I know it may be a stretch for you, but not everything in the world is tied to 9/11.

Actually, I don't "clearly know what you do" about your cause. Does it involve more than just Internet arguments with random strangers that mostly involve name-calling and insults?

My causes are mainly women's issues. I have volunteered, fund-raised and donated clothing, housewares and money to shelters in whichever city I'm living in. I also am into animal rescues. I've had 3 rescue dogs, my kids rescue animals and I volunteer to work with various animal rescue societies. I have attended marches for various other causes and signed petitions and informed myself of many issues. I also consider myself an Ambassador for flamenco. We each do what we can to make the world a better place. What do you do for your 9/11 cause?

Why does your cause have to be my cause? Can't we each have our own?

Going back to the incident involving women's shelters, Dialamah, we've discussed this before and you have posited that we need to make Muslim women in abusive homes aware of the resources available to them. The Norwegians did this, going directly to the communities with the information. Many women showed up at the shelters and it was noticed that if 1 showed up, others from the same neighborhood did too. You have also posited that the majority of Muslims would want these resources and that is what The Norwegians thought as well. Instead they were met with protests from Muslims, wanting the law changed to suit them. Also something that you posit as something that is rarely done in the Muslim world. Now what does the Norwegian government do? Cave in to the demands? Now you have told these women there is a safe place for them, but it's not because they are shipped right back to abusive husbands. Round round we go..... Unfortunately, what you posit is not the reality. You also claim that what's happening in Europe will not be the case in Canada (I don't know why it would be different here, you've never explained why) but I think we need to pay attention to what's working and what's not working in Europe and learn from it.

I wasn't telling you that you HAVE TO read it. It's just difficult to discuss a book's points (not all of which I agreed with) with someone who hasn't read it and would refuse to read anything critical of Islam. You never heard of Bruce Bawer and have never read anything of his, but you're already highly critical of him and have already branded him a racist Islamophobe. I'm always surprised when people use Wiki as a source here. When I was in college we were not allowed to use Wiki as a source on anything. Edit: Since you haven't read the book, it's mainly about which immigration policies have worked and which ones haven't and the why's and why not's of policies in many countries of Europe and in the US. How countries need to be aware of traditions and cultural ideas that would be in direct conflict with laws and regulations already in place. How these need to be changed to both accommodate acceptable traditions and yet not place it's own citizens or the immigrants themselves in danger or having 2 sets of laws - one for native born Europeans and another for immigrants. That was why I read the book. Not because it is critical of Islam.

My apologies. Let's just chalk it up to my poor grasp of the English language.

I don't know....maybe read it and see what you think?

He actually wrote a book and many articles that were highly critical of Western politics, economics, attitudes, immigration, etc. Then he moved to Norway, believing European attitudes were superior to Western ones. He wrote "While Europe Slept" because he had visited there for years and once he started to live there, he wrote about the changes he had seen since the early '90's and how it was affecting and changing Europe. He compares the 2 ("two" for Hot Enough) immigration systems and writes pros and cons for each. The book also talks about journalistic integrity in both parts of the world. For the protests against women's shelters instance, he talks about the effect it had on both the Muslim and Norwegian communities. You likely wouldn't find it in an article, as he wrote the book. But I think Bodi's objections are in print, likely the Guardian? I'm just guessing, it's cited in the book, but I don't have it handy for you right now. I actually found him to be quite fair in the book, having read it. But I understand that someone like yourself would view it as critical of Islam.

It's in the book, "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer. The man who started it was named Faisal Bodi, a British Muslim, who argued that the shelters "tear apart our families".

In Norway, Muslim men protested the women's shelters and demanded that any Muslim woman who showed up be turned away and handed over to a tribunal of Muslim men for "punishment".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK5NMfbXyfE Not sure how to post a video here. But I'm listening to Ketama a lot these days.

No, I "get" what you're trying to say. I just disagree with 2 of your points: #1 - I disagree with you that there are no problems with Muslims or in Islam. #2 - I disagree with you that the US is 100% responsible for what Muslims/Islam are doing.

I've read a lot about immigration in European countries compared to immigration into the US. My personal opinion is that America respects immigrants more in regard to viewing them as potential assets, Europe has experienced more problems with immigration because it tends to view immigrants in a condescending type of way - more as charity cases, needy, often leading a lot of them to become nothing more than wards of the state. While immigrants are encouraged to keep certain aspects of their culture once in the US, they are also expected to integrate and to get a job. Not so much in most European countries. Most European countries have laws that actually prevent this. For example, Sweden has a minimum age for marrying of 18, but for immigrants there is no minimum. In Germany, a German who marries and wants to bring their new spouse in from outside the EU has years of legal hoops to jump through, but an immigrant is not required to do so, since it is assumed the marriage is arranged and the parties will likely have never even met. Europe has been overly-accomodating and reluctant to address certain reprehensible traditions and religious/cultural differences and so has created extreme problems for itself, that the US has not experienced (at least not nearly to the same extent.) In many parts of Europe, when an ethnic European beats his wife, the police know how to handle it. When it's an immigrant beating his wife, it's seen as a cultural thing that the police have no right to intrude on. I could go on and on.....but if you just think about how these and other policies prevent immigrants from integrating (not to mention how they fail women), you'll see what I'm getting at. It's difficult, as a North American women, to watch immigrant women be treated so poorly due to culture and also see that our own governments provide them no help simply because they are immigrants. And to hear people like you demand that they keep these aspects of their culture or ignore them, I feel you do immigrants a great disservice. I view it more as a clash of cultures than a "Red Scare". And I'm sorry if you think it makes me a bad person....but as a woman, I would take living in Western society over living in a Muslim society - any day. Is our way perfect? No, but I do think it is better.

Maybe more posters would be inclined to discuss this with you if you weren't foaming at the mouth with hatred, and responded to the points being made, without the barrage of snark and insults. Just a suggestion.