Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by blackbird

  1. 2 hours ago, Rue said:

    its a tough issue, but as a lawyer believe it or not the law Society of Upper Canada does not allow me to refuse to represent a client simply because they are gay, believe in having freedom of choice in regards to when and if to have a child, having sex outside marriage.

    The problem is can you get Trinity law graduates to guarantee they will be neutral when serving such clients?

    See the Law Societies face a cold reality. If Trinity creates a private Christian law school, then soon we have a private Jewish one, then Muslim one and so on. Lawyers are not supposed to mix their personal religious beliefs with their practice of law.

    Its a difficult issue in maintaining an appearance of being free from conflict of interest not just actual conflict of interest.



    We live in a society where multiculturalism and diversity is made much of.   I don't think it is right to ban a segment of society because of their religious beliefs.  This is where the issue of freedom of religion and freedom of expression will be tested.

  2. 7 hours ago, Bonam said:

    What is "necessary"? Do you know that regardless of possible American or Japanese casualties in any possible invasion, that with each day that passed, thousands of innocent people in China and elsewhere were murdered, raped, tortured, and subjected to twisted medical experiments by the Japanese Army? Against an adversary like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in WWII, absolutely any means are completely justified to achieve the soonest, most complete, and most assured victory possible. Neither Germany nor Japan would have hesitated an instant before using nukes on the US, Russia, or any of the allied powers. 

    People think about the morality of war in terms of the wars of today... which are essentially optional wars, police actions, addressing minor (almost non-existent) threats. In such wars, yeah, avoid civilian casualties when possible. Or better yet, don't get into optional wars to begin with. But WWII was not such a war, it was an existential struggle, it was total war as the world has never seen since and with any luck will never see again. Past a certain point, there can be no hesitation to use any means available. If there had been nukes before Germany had surrendered, it would have been entirely justified to have used them there, too.

    To not use every means possible to bring about the swiftest and most complete end to the war would have been a betrayal of every single person that died at the hands of Germany and Japan, and every single person who sacrificed their lives in fighting them. 

    You're absolutely correct.  A sensible voice.  Lots of younger people growing up today have no idea about war.  They have never studied it and live in a kind of dream world where they think about things in terms of peace, love, and selfies.  As you pointed out, there were all kinds of horrors continuing every day.  Not to mention the prisoners of war that were treated very cruelly in many cases.  Just because some military leaders thought the war "was over" doesn't mean Japan had surrendered.  They had not in fact.  They were preparing their citizens on the mainland to fight to the death of every person.  The Japanese military had no intention of surrendering if they could keep the fight going.  That is ingrained in their thinking from history.  That's why after the war, all Samurai swords had to be surrendered to the occupying American forces in Japan.  They were considered a symbol of Japan's historic militarism and never surrender attitude.  People had to take their personal collector's Samurai swords to depots set up all over the country and turn them in.  Many some how made it back to the states and were given to some military veterans as a gift for serving. 

  3. The claim that the war was over is nonsense.  If it was over, why did the Japanese not surrender until after the two atomic bombs had been dropped?

    War is a very tragic business but it's not something where you give the enemy any advantage or sacrifice the lives of your own country to reduce the loss of the enemy.  They were the enemy at that time and started the war by attacking Pearl Harbour where they killed three thousand people.  Tens of thousands of American men died on the island of Okinawa to take it.   Where is your sympathy for those people?  Wake up.  You do what you have to do to save your own people first.

  4. Americans made a calculation that it would have cost them tens of thousands of American lives to take Japan by landing armed forces on the Japanese island.  Japan's military was not ready to surrender.  They were preparing every citizen to fight to the death in Japan itself.  Remember the objective is to win the war with the minimum casualties on your side.  They calculated that the atom bomb would save a lot of American lives.

  5. The idea that the USA is "evil" I find nonsense.  In WW2 the U.S.A. made great sacrifices of life and resources to defeat Japan in the Pacific and Axis powers in Europe.  I believe it was thought by the U.S. powers that be at the time before the atomic bombs were dropped that military leadership in Japan were not willing to surrender and that to actually take the main island of Japan would involve huge loss of young American lives. Tens of thousands of young American men had already sacrificed their lives on the Pacific islands.  It is fine for people who are looking at it in hindsight to give their opinion and claim it wasn't necessary, but the decision makers at the time were dealing with the information they had at that time. 


  6. 4 minutes ago, Rue said:

    I would argue you refuse to see a connection between Islam and terrorism and justify that blindness by ysing the above argument.

    Saying there is a connection between Islam and terrorism which you refuse to do, does not mean one blames all Muslims for being bad people. In fact Michael Hard. has in his own way made that point to me. I don't mistake him saying to me I can never draw a conection between Islam and terrorism. I get that from your words.

    I don't think negatively assigning all Muslims blame for terrorists within their community is fair or logical and in fact it probably is what Muslim terrorists want but it is important we denounce the Muslim extremist ideology behind this terrorism.

    Not all 3 million Muslims in Britain are terrorists but there is far higher a likelihood a terrorist today is calling themselves  a Muslim and comes from a Muslim community. That is not an excuse to hate Muslims but it is a fact we can't ignore.

    I agree.  I have nothing against Muslims.   I think it is wrong to equate being opposed to Islam as being against Muslims.  There is a lot of that going on.

    In western democracies where freedom of religion and freedom of expression is paramount, people are free to believe in whatever religion or no religion and free to express opinions about other religions they disagree with.  This is a historical right which has been exercised for a long time.  The problem with the word Islamophobia, which motion the parliament just passed a few hours ago, the word is not defined.  That leaves it open to individual interpretation.  However we still have a Constitution and historical precedents which uphold freedom of expression.  But if such a word comes into law, we may have a problem. 


  7. 28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

     I'm not going to engage with you in a 35-point pivot where you try to convince me that the Quran (but NOT the old testament) is the same religion yadda yadda.  You're building a tower of babylon and we've tried this before.  The main issue with the people that are being condemned (all 1.5 billion) is that some people don't like them and that's it.  

    The Old Testament has some verses which describe some violent historical things that happened several thousand years ago.  But if you understand the context it is strictly a historical record, not an instruction for how anyone is to act today.  The Quran on the other hand has over 109 verses which exhort followers to violence and the context in most cases could lead one to believe it is instruction for followers today.  The interpretation of the verses is left to individual preferences as context in many cases is non-existent.   The difference between the Old Testament and the Quran in this respect is the context in which such verses are written.  Many people try to undermine the Old Testament by pulling verses out and claiming they prove that they teach violence.  This is completely incorrect.  It's context that matters.


  8. The peculiar thing about the London terrorist attack is the media are still talking as if they don't know the motive.  The CBC is great at obfuscation of the cause.  In this case the terrorist had a record of some crime but was not on the immediate radar.  This is similar to other attacks where the terrorist has had run-ins with the law and sometimes a criminal record.  Some commentators have said the lone wolf attacker sometimes is a deeply troubled individual who has become radicalized.  He adopts the belief that his only salvation so-to-speak from his miserable life is to commit an act of terrorism and die in the process.   He believes (wrongly) that this will appease Allah and take him to heaven where he will receive 72 virgins.  The question is how does society counter this false belief?

    I believe the best anti-dote to this false belief is the bible.  But if you are not a christian, you would not believe the bible.  The Bible counters it because it proves itself as being God's inspired word and therefore is the only ground and source for truth.  The many miracles in the bible are just one of the proofs it is from God.  One example is the miraculous deliverance of Israel from captivity in Egypt and the various miracles recorded in the bible as associated with that deliverance. 

  9. 10 minutes ago, kactus said:

    First off I really don't appreciate being called names when you don't even know me. Second of al If you want to discuss the merits of "jihad terrorism" as you put it open anorher thread and let's discuss. However, it has no context here as the suspect in UK is believed to have been a 'home grown' terrorist.

    The subject is the terrorist attack in London.  Everything we are talking about is directly related.  Why do we need another thread?

    Sorry for calling you a denier.  Didn't mean to offend.

  10. 2 minutes ago, kactus said:

    First off I really don't appreciate being called names when you don't even know me. Second of al If you want to discuss the merits of "jihad terrorism" as you put it open anorher thread and let's discuss. However, it has no context here as the suspect in UK is believed to have been a 'home grown' terrorist.

    What does "home grown" have to do with anything?  He is still a jihad terrorist, correct?

  11. 1 minute ago, kactus said:

    I opened this thread in the good faith that there will be some thought provoking discussions and support for the victims of this tragedy. Instead it turns into another debacle for certain people venting anger against a whole religion. Whilst the UK government is still investigating this case all the western governments have the responsibility in understanding the root cause of these home grown terrorists and put a stop to it. Whether it is committed by a white christian supremacist or a fanatical Muslim....  

    First, the number of terrorist attacks against Muslims is infinitely small compared with the number of jihad terrorist attacks in the world.

    Second, people who commit a terrorist act are not "christian" by biblical definition.

    I see you are a denier that jihad terrorism is connected with Islam.  http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

  12. 21 minutes ago, marcus said:

    You are not taking US foreign policy into consideration when trying to figure why these attacks are happening. This is one of the biggest flaws when approaching this conversation. 

    What part of the world do you live?  Are you trying to say jihad terrorism is caused by the west?  Hundreds of people, including Muslims, are killed by jihad attacks every week.  You think they are doing it because of US foreign policy?  Come on!   Did you read the link?  http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

    • Like 1
  13. 6 minutes ago, Benz said:

    You are very naive if you think that it would change anything in the mind of a terrorist. Think about it. The guy is ready to commit an horrible crime and deal with all the consequences that go with it. Do you really think that losing its canadian citizenship weigh anything in the balance? Picture this...

    "I will kill alot of people, I will end up in jail for life, or I will suicide myself, I will be know as a terrorist anywhere on this planet... but at least I will not lose my canadian citizenship, so let's do it. Oh wait, what? Now I can lose that citizenship, ahhh shoot! ok I won't do it then."

    Is it how you think it will works?

    What garanty you have the terrorist will be considered terrorist in its native country? Yes in some countries the terrorists will have a really hard time, but in some others not.

    One thing for sure, the family of a potential terrorist will fear to reveal information to the authorities if it means that it can lead to citizenship revokation.

    To me, this weigh way more than anything else.

    How about after he serves his sentence in Canada, then revoke his Canadian citizenship and send him back to his other country.

  14. Just now, hot enough said:

    All of a sudden there are experts all over the planet on Islam, all their info supplied from right wing racist websites. 


    2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

    One is an Islamophobe when one simply hates because they read the hate found on right wing racist websites

    The best way to know what you're talking about is to read the Quran itself.


  15. The question is Why Trump won.  It's a tough question, but I think there was deep dissatisfaction with Clinton, Obama and his administration.  Trump came in as a kind of renegade opposed to the establishment.  He was going to drain the swamp in Washington.   A lot of people who have lost their jobs or have seen their standard of living go down over the years became suspicious of the democrats and the mainstream media.  There is a lot of distrust of established politicians who make lots of promises but never seem to change much.  I think many people decided to give Trump a chance thinking he might actually go in and shake things up a bit and accomplish something.

  16. 9 minutes ago, marcus said:

    So basically, everything that I listed which have happened in the past 15 years are not "fighting terrorism".

    A few points about your comments:

    - The information about Iraq's WMD was made up by the administration. The reason given to attack Iraq was not just an "oops". It was a lie.

    - Saudi and the Gulf States DO fund ISIS and Al Qaeda. It's important that you learn and acknowledge this fact.

    - Libya was causing "a lot of trouble"? What? Lots of countries kill people and have killed a lot people than Gaddafi did. This policeman attitude is a perfect example of fanning the flames of terrorism.

    - Egypt: You didn't respond to the comment I made. What I said was that, after the Arab spring and after the democratically elected government was elected by Egyptians, U.S. was involved in a coupe in Egypt to re-install the Mobarak military back into power. Essentially, helping another dictator come into power.

    - Drones: When you kill thousands of innocent people for the sake of getting a few so-called terrorists, that's another example of fanning the flames of terrorism.

    Every single action above in the past 15 years has not been about "fighting terrorism". In fact, every one of those acts have nurtured terrorism and animosity towards the West. It's important for you to acknowledge what we have helped to create, instead of empty, superficial claims that we are "fighting terrorism". 


    I don't claim to be an expert on anything, least of all Libya. I would have to look into it.

    If you're adamant about believing that Saudi Arabia is funding ISIS and Al Qaeda, there is not much I can say to you about it.

    Egypt had been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood which is a terrorist organization.  The U.S. didn't overthrow it.  The Egyptian military took over. 

    I never heard that drones kill thousands of people.  I don't think that is true.  They serve a purpose.

    I never said every single thing that happened was to fight terrorism.  Terrorism is a real threat in the world today, whether you believe it or not.

    You seem to have some very strange beliefs.   I think you will not believe anything I tell you. 

    I may start another thread in which we can discuss some of these things.  We might be chastised for straying too far from the topic here, so I will let it rest for now.

  17. 17 minutes ago, marcus said:

    How was invading Iraq, "fighting terrorism"?

    How is selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, the countries that fund ISIS and Al Qaeda, "fighting terrorism"?

    How was attacking Libya, "fighting terrorism"?

    How is pushing a democratically elected government out of power, by supporting Mobarak's military, "fighting terrorism"?

    How is shooting missiles from drones and with a 40:1, civilian:terrorist, "fighting terrorism"?

    I would appreciate a discussion and replies based on substance, rather than empty, shallow accusations.

    I didn't say every single thing that happened was something I agreed with or that it was a good thing.  We live in an imperfect world and not everything that happens can be approved of.

    -The U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on a report that Sadam has weapons of mass destruction and might use them.  I can't recall what I thought about it at the time.  I think I may have agreed with the U.S.   Many think now it was a mistake to go into Iraq.

    -Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE are I believe allies of the U.S.  They are not funding ISIS and Al Qaeda.  Not sure where you got that.

    -Libya had Khadafi who I think was causing the west a lot of trouble.  Wasn't he killing a lot of people in his own country?  They decided he had to be removed.  I think there are still a lot of problem with Libya.  Those countries are very unstable and have internal civil wars and revolutions periodically.

    -Egypt has been an ally of the U.S. for many years.  The U.S. supplies a lot of money or military aid for Egypt in order to keep them as allies. 

    It is better to have Egypt and Saudi Arabia as allies than opponents.  That is why the U.S. gives them money and military assistance.

    -Drones are used by the U.S. to go after high-ranking Al Qaeda leaders.  They have been successful.  It is a major part of the war on terrorism.


  18. 1 minute ago, marcus said:

    Perhaps you're unable to distinguish between what is fighting against terrorism and what is fighting for oil, territory and feeding the military industrial complex. 

    Sounds like you've been reading socialist/marxist propaganda.   Those are the exact words they often use.  I take it you are a young idealist.  I read the odd book with those phrases when I was young.  Thankfully I eventually woke up to reality about 40 years ago.  Sometimes it takes time. 

    • Like 1
  19. On 2017-03-18 at 7:09 AM, Argus said:

    You realize he's been president for less than two months, right? The proper answer is that nothing he has done has had any real impact as of yet. How could it have?




    He has had a significant impact.  The stock market jumped up quite a bit signifying confidence the direction the U.S. is heading.  The proper answer is confidence.  It makes a big difference to everything.

    • Like 1
  20. 32 minutes ago, marcus said:

    Through your observation and calculations of what has transpired since 911, have you ever taken into consideration West's foreign policy and actions as part of the equation?

    Everything from supporting dictators to installing dictators to selling weapons that are used to kill innocent people and of course the military interventions.

    What part of the world do you live in?  It sounds like you might be opposed to the west's war on terrorism in the world.  What's your solution?

  21. Revoking citizenship of a convicted terrorist who holds dual citizenship would send a message to other would-be terrorists in the country.  Keeping someone in prison in Canada is very costly.  If we have a simple way of avoiding that expense that might be over 100,000 dollars a year, it might be worth doing.  Many countries in the ME and Africa have so many terrorists that one more wouldn't make any difference.

  • Create New...