blackbird

Actually international communism was a reality and a threat during the cold war era. Examples are Cuba, some countries in central America where revolutionaries were fighting. Places like El Salvador, Other places where communists were trying to spread were Vietnam, Cambodia, possibly Laos, and in Africa, Angola. Cuba sent communist troops to fight in Angola. Cuba also brought in missiles in 1961 and precipitated the Cuban missile crisis which put the world on the brink of nuclear war with the USSR. It was averted at the last minute by Gorbachev and President John F Kennedy. Cooler heads prevailed.

Just reported on CTV news. A pro Trump demonstration in California was met with anti-Trump supporters, several of whom used pepper spray against Trump supporters causing a riot and physical confrontation. Several people were arrested. Why is it the liberal anti-Trump people have to resort to illegal, violent confrontations?

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

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?

And the point is?

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?

Are you opposed to the war against ISIS?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

The best way to know what you're talking about is to read the Quran itself. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx