Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    9,001
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by blackbird

  1. 23 hours ago, hot enough said:

    Quite the opposite. The education you received was a joke. It was all a long series of fabrications. In English, definitely Canadian history - forgetting to mention a genocide isn't a little deal. The Canadian traditions and cultures couldn't have been very important because they were white race centric lies. 

    What genocide are you speaking of?  What lies?  Please expound on that.

  2. 1 hour ago, hot enough said:

    I'm not anti American, I am anti US war crimes and anti US terrorism. Are you pro-US war crimes and pro-US terrorism? Why?

     

    Yes, I know that the world is full of tyrannical dictatorships and a large majority of them are supported by the USA. 

    I am on the side of those who have had their countries illegally invaded, over 70 since WWII, those tens of millions who have been slaughtered by the US since WWII, those hundreds of millions who have had their loved ones and their wealth taken from them by US predation. 

    Whose side are you on? 

    I just wondered where you get your information.  You haven't said yet.  You must have got your ideas from somewhere.

    You know I am on the side of the west, Canada and our allies.  You are not and you have a problem.  You are not living in reality.  I would like to help you but you have to come clean first.  Where did you get your ideas?

  3. 2 minutes ago, Topaz said:

    I'm sure there's many stats on this, so here is one I found and the article say since 1990's  over 4 million have been killed. When one thinks  of the 2900+ 9/11 and the 4000+ US soldiers killed, the Middle-East have suffer far more than anyone. I'm not sure if Syria is included but if this war  keeps up, they may be as high as when the US dropped the nuke.                                                      http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/unworthy-victims-western-wars-have-killed-four-million-muslims-1990-39149394         

    And the point is?

  4. 3 hours ago, hot enough said:

    You are simply a propagandist, by your own admission. You don't read articles, you don't address or discuss the science, you simply dish up propaganda.

    Did you learn your anti Americanism, anti west from left wing university professors in your university in Calgary?  Please explain why you take such a radical position.  Don't you realize that the world is full of tyrannical dictatorships who hate the west and everything we stand for? (China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, etc.)  They do no respect human rights or fundamental freedoms which you enjoy in the west.  You would not be free to criticize them in their countries as you are free here.   Whose side are you on anyway?

  5. 15 minutes ago, hot enough said:

    Yup, but war crimes are not war. That is the huge distinction that you, hunkered down in your anti-Muslim mindset, fail to see. 

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

    Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from phony patriotism - Me

    Are you opposed to the war against ISIS?

  6. Another thought about this.  If they can discriminate against students from TWU, why not discriminate against anyone who holds certain beliefs.  How is it possible to find out exactly what individuals believe about something?  It is not only that TWU students have certain values or beliefs, most of the society does.  People from all walks of life have certain beliefs and people from various different religious backgrounds have various beliefs.  Are they going to say to a Muslim you can't become a lawyer in Ontario?  You better believe they are not going to say that.  They would be taken to the Human Rights Tribunal so fast it would make your head spin.  What about Jews?  The list could go on.  But for some reason it is in vogue to discriminate against WASPS,  white anglo saxon Protestants.  Time to get over that. 

  7. 21 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

    Once again, what exactly are you claiming is a "myth"?

    That American soldiers were dying while the supposed blockade was going on? Well, I've pointed out 2 cases of ships that were sunk (leading to American deaths) when supposedly Japan was blockaded and "about to surrender".

    That Japan still had troops in other Asian countries and were causing deaths in those countries at the time of the bombings? That's pretty well documented.

    That Japan was not likely to surrender any time soon? Well, I think the fact that they were continuing to fight even after loosing in Okinawa was a pretty good sign of that.

    Uhhh... so? The fact that servicemen are at risk doesn't mean that the government doesn't have an obligation to reduce that risk when possible. We don't send the military into combat with slingshots if we don't have enough guns for them.

    Soldiers are still humans and citizens. (And it should be pointed out that many were drafted, rather than volunteers.)

    And the sooner the war was over, the sooner those servicemen would become civilians.

    ETA: And in case you need to be reminded, not only were servicemen at risk as the war continued but civilians in countries like China, Vietnam and Laos.

    You know, you seem to tosI s around the phrase "war crime" rather willy-nilly. What is the basis of your claim that:

    - The use of Nuclear weapons (at the time) was considered a "war crime"

    - That nations are not allowed to take actions to protect the lives of its soldiers

    I would add that the Japanese had a history of militarism, a kind of religious belief that one never surrenders.  That' s why they had the Kamakazi pilots (or suicide pilots) who flew their planes into American ships.  The Japanese military tradition was to fight to the death and the whole country was being readied to fight to the death should the American land on the mainland.  Surrender was not in the vocabulary of the militarists that were in charge.  It would take a spectacular event to cause them to change their minds.  The atomic bombs saved a lot of American lives and brought the war to a quick end.

  8. 1 minute ago, taxme said:

    From what I have read is that this whole controversy was based on asking the students to not have sex before marriage? Was this the case or not?  

    When it comes to multiculturalism and diversity, freedom of expression will always take second place when it comes to challenging minority rule, or what minorities demand. That test is over. The minorities have won. Canada is ruled over by the minority. In Canada we now consider that to be fair and equal. Welcome to the new political correct Canada. 

    Yes, I get your point and agree.   This is a more difficult issue and could be quite complicated.   But basically I think you are correct that the issue with the law society in Ontario was that the students signed a covenant agreeing to no pre-marital or extra-marital sex.  But there could be more to it than that. 

  9. 2 hours ago, Rue said:

     

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

     

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

     

     

    The reality is I think that everyone has biases in one way or another.  It is impossible to have a world with people free from some kind of bias.

    So why would they single out the TW students as unsuitable to be lawyers in Ontario.  I don't see it as an issue of conflict of interest.   I think it depends on what the issue a lawyer would be asked to do or defend, not necessarily whether the client is gay.  I don't think it was suggested by anyone they would not serve certain clients based on their sexual preference.  The law society is probably simply biased against people that have christian convictions.  One can be representing a gay person in a matter that has nothing to do with gay rights or discrimination of gays.  Those kind of cases are probably very few.  If it was a case where for example a gay person wanted representation because he was being discriminated because of being gay, then the lawyer could advise the client, he simply can't represent him because of his religious beliefs.  There are lots of lawyers around.  This shouldn't be a problem.  It is wrong for the law society to impose their own personal beliefs or lack of beliefs on other people and say that only people that fit their mold can become lawyers. 

  10. 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.

  11. 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. 

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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. 

      

  15. 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. 

     

  16. 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.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

  17. 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. 

  18. 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.

  19. 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?

  20. 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

  21. 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
  22. 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.

  23. 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.

    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

  24. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...