blackbird

The U.S. had evidence that they were preparing to fight using civilians. I believe there are videos of civilians being trained to fight. Surrendering was against Japan's belief system. They had a strong belief it is better to die than surrender no matter what. We saw that with the Kamakazi aircraft fighter pilots who crashed their planes into ships on purpose even though they were killed. The battle for Okinawa was very difficult because Japanese did not believe in surrendering even when there was no chance. Thousands of American soldiers were killed there. The U.S. did not want to repeat that kind of battle on mainland Japan. It would have been much worse than the Okinawa battle because civilians would have been fighting on their homeland. The U.S. was not prepared to sacrifice thousands, maybe tens of thousands of American soldiers when there is a way to avoid it. Americans are responsible to protect their own people first. That's what war means. It is not an equal opportunity deal. Today, 77 years later, the U.S. and Japan are very close together. Trump is in Japan right now and with the Japanese Prime Minister, having dinner and discussing issues of mutual concern.

Yes, and if we didn't have 100,000 abortions a year, we might be able to reduce immigration by at least that amount. I suspect high immigration numbers has more to do with political parties hoping to make political gain by it.

If there is not enough working people paying taxes to replace the existing workers that retire or pass away, there will not be enough money to pay for our health care, old age pensions, and other social services we expect. That's the reason we need immigrants. Our own Caucasian population in Canada is not reproducing in sufficient numbers to even survive. We are also losing about 100,000 babies a year to abortion in Canada, likely mostly Caucasian because they mostly the ones who go for abortions. Any numbers of children less than about 2.1 per couple means the gradual extinction of that ethnic group. Canadian Caucasians fall below that cutoff point. I would prefer to see more immigrants from Europe so we could maintain our Judeo-christian civilization and culture, and less from Asia and Africa. But I don't think the government has that in mind or cares. Most will probably come from Asia, Africa and some from the middle east bringing their cultures with them and form enclaves in Canada.

What you don't understand is the U.S. did not start the war with Japan. Japan was not willing to surrender and was going to defend itself with every citizen on the island. They were preparing to fight to the last person. It would have cost the U.S. tens of thousands of lives to take control of Japan. That's why the U.S. decided the atomic bombs would save U.S. lives and probably save Japanese lives too because fewer people would be killed than having to fight hand to hand on the island as well as use conventional bombs which also kill a lot of people.

The mod said we are getting off topic. If you want to discuss this could you pls go to the thread titled "Anti-Semitism remains prevalent" which I gave a couple postings back. This topic will derail this thread which is titled Islamophobia in Canada. I think the question of Israel better fits that title. Or you can start a new thread.

We are getting off topic on this thread, but if you want to discuss Zionism and Israel, you can go to the thread "Anti-Semitism Remains Prevalent" under The Rest of the World and I will reply to anything you have to say about it. It should fit in with that topic better.

You ignored the central issue of the definition of Zionism. Do you support Israel's right to exist?

That explains nothing. You have to come up with something better than that. Maybe go see hot enough. He has lots of junk.

I agree with everything you said except your comment on Zionism. Zionism was just the movement to re-establish the nation of Israel. These people are on our side. It's a mistake to oppose them. Please reconsider Zionism. Israel is the only democracy in the middle east and an ally of western democratic countries. Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת‎ Tsiyyonut IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut] after Zion) is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

The head of the autoworkers union, Unifor, was on CBC today talking about NAFTA. He seems to know a lot about it in the auto manufacturing business. It sounds like it will be a complex issue. Parts are manufactured in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The big problem he said is Mexican auto parts manufacturering workers are paid on about $2 an hour, causing the manufacturing of parts to be moving to Mexico. He claims that will have to be solved.

How do you figure that?

Here is a website you might like that I came across. Some good articles on there and food for thought. One is Dalhousie University is "Swimming in a Sea of White Supremacy". http://www.eurocanadian.ca/

Good point. Our main industry is extracting natural resources. I guess there is only so much value-added to resources that can be done because the market for it must be limited. We can sell only so much logs, coal, oil, and natural gas. Don't you think we should be able to find some way to capitalize more on raw resources? Maybe get a bit for more them. Paying 20 or 30% duty for exporting lumber doesn't make much sense. Are we selling raw logs to the U.S? Maybe we should stop doing that and sell more lumber instead at a higher price. What's the solution to that one? Government cannot tell companies what to produce. But they can negotiate trade deals that might encourage selling more of something, like more lumber or natural gas/oil. Our biggest problem is the liberal left who won't let us build pipelines and sell our oil overseas. The next big problem is the courts and liberals who require us to negotiate with native bands and native leaders to develop resources and other projects while at the same time telling the government to pay millions to aggrieved Muslims and aboriginals. The third problem is the strong environmental lobby and NDP that obeys them. Is there anybody in Canada that represents the interests of ordinary Canadians?

Trump has a lot of clout since he can cancel or reject NAFTA any time. Canada does have a few things which work in it's favour. We have natural resources, including oil, natural gas, electricity from hydro-electric dams and water. Do we also have uranium? Once the whole NAFTA is opened up for renegotiation, which is what Trump did, I would think everything is on the table.

Harper's analysis was very accurate.

I think you greatly underestimate Trump. He has a core of tens of millions of ordinary, middle class people who are tired of the globalist leftward drift of government. When Trump ran he was running more as an independent than a Republican. He knows a lot of his base are fed up with all government and he promised to clear the swamp. Trudeau and the Liberals don't really have much of a clue on NAFTA. Taking progressives ideas like native issues, environmental issues, and labour issues to the bargaining table was a disastrous move. That's exactly the kind of thing that Trump hates. Also trying to negotiate a deal with a tri-party deal which includes Mexico was a serious mistake as well. Trump made it clear during the election his main concern with NAFTA was Mexico not Canada. Now Trudeau and the Liberals have made Canada a big concern for Trump. If we get through this reasonably unscathed we will be very fortunate indeed. NAFTA could be finished. Then Canada will have to negotiate piece meal for each industry. That could be very costly for trade. We already signed a trade deal with Europe and some other countries. It is not easy or even possible to replace the U.S. with other countries.

Here an interesting perspective on Bill 62 in the Toronto Sun which makes sense. It says the progressives that are opposing bill 62 in Quebec and the rest of country and defending the wearing of a face covering are inadvertently supporting the oppression of Muslim women and girls. They say nothing about the danger these women face if they try to stop wearing a Niqab or Hijab and want to dress like a westerner. Apparently they're more concerned with a Muslim's so-called right to wear this symbol of fundamentalist ideology than Muslim women or girl's bondage and safety. A Muslim teenage girl finally, after being beaten and abused by her father for not wearing a Niqab or Hijab, filed a report to the police. This happened in Gatineau just across the river from the Ottawa mayor who condemned bill 62. Sad. http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-progressive-reaction-to-bill-62-lets-down-vulnerable-muslim-womenA

Jesus did die for the sins of those who belong to him. Calvinist, reformed or presbyterian doctrine teaches he died only for those who are saved or forgiven, not the whole unbelieving world. At the same time, Jesus does want everyone to be saved and nobody to be lost. But nobody knows who will become a believer so nobody can say who will be forgiven in the future. Basically I think it's fair to say the Bible teaches one must have faith which is a gift of God, not by works. (Ephesians Ch2 vs8) Receiving forgiveness for one's sins should not be taken as a licence to sin. That argument has been made before but it's due to a lack of understanding of the Bible. It's easy to take bits and pieces of something you hear and throw it out there to try to be a little controversial, but actually knowing what the Bible teaches takes a bit of study and effort.

You have a one-track mind and the same old same old keeps coming out on here. What is an illegal invasion to you might not be to the western world. It's might be a matter of point of view. If you are on the opposite side you probably would say that. The U.S. does what is necessary for it's security. A few things might be debatable. But then you even say the war against terrorism is wrong. You would rather see terrorists like al Qaeda run rampant with no opposition. You lost all credibility on the subject of 9-11 and al Qaeda. If you had picked certain things you might have convinced someone of some things; but when you called everything illegal, including the war on terrorism, you lost it.

Because there is no logistical way to ban a thought or ideology. You know that. You are saying banning a face covering is the same as trying to ban an ideology. It's not. A face covering is a physical thing. You want to label anyone who disagrees with the face covering as a bigot or racist. That's the only excuse liberals can use when they have no other answer.

No, I never said to ban the the ideology. How would you ban an ideology? It's not possible. I disagree with it and don't defend it. I don't agree that face coverings should be allowed in public because it is a form of intimidation and tells everyone they reject our culture of freedom and human rights. If you want to call someone who disagrees with Islam a bigot, that's your choice. But it's not a rational argument for anything.

The nun's habit doesn't cover their face. So what do nuns have to do with bill 62? The purpose of a nun's habit is also different. It is not a sign for a fascist ideology which denies women's fundamental rights and treats them as inferiors and rejects our western freedoms and human rights. It is hypocrisy to say one believes in equality and human rights for women, but accept this symbol in public places which means the opposite.

How is democracy big nonsense? The people decide who they want to represent them in government. Who else should decide who will form the government? Who has the right more than the people to decide? Democracy is not perfect and they make some bad decisions but nobody has found a fairer system than letting the people choose their leaders. The Bible says Christians must obey those in authority unless of course they do something which is against God's teaching in the Bible such as killing innocent people as Hitler and the Nazis did.

Bill 62 is about banning a face covering in certain circumstances, not about banning religion. The Niqab is sending the message that our western culture and freedoms are rejected. This is a political ideology of control under the cover of a religion. Do you support this?

So how does the Queen choose the Prime Minister or members of parliament in Canada? The people elect the government in Canada every four years. Democracy is far from perfect, but as Churchill said there is no better system. What is the alternative? The only alternative is a dictatorship. Then you have one person who dictates everything to the whole country and makes all the laws. This has been the case in many countries throughout history. Sometimes it turns out very bad for the people. Many of us disagree with the Prime Minister but we will have a chance to change the government in two years by elections. In the meantime, anyone who disagrees with the government is free to speak against what they are doing or write to government or newspapers to complain. But anyone is wise to obey the leaders in all the laws and avoid any problems. This is what the Bible says. Obey those in power. The U.S. banned alcoholic beverages around 100 years ago but it didn't work well. I think it was called prohibition. There was a huge black market and it was sold illegally. The government had to give up.