H10

It needs to be investigated.

The area is full of government workers. Yes he wanted to attack parliament, not tourist near parliament, there are way better places in London to kill tourist.

No, it doesn't because his intent was to hit government, civilians just got in the way.

Your history, and geography was based in lies, your math was not too bad but alot of it was full of lies, your books were all based on pc lies to make british people feel good. Liberalism is common sense and logic, it is conservatism which is based on an illogical desire to cling onto a fabled past that never existed. This is a good example of how your geography was phony. You were taught a fake map to make Europeans feel good by showing their countries 8 times larger on the map than they truly were. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4034374/a-whole-new-world-why-boston-public-schools-are-adopting-a-different-map-1.4034379 Fake pc map you oldies were taught Real accurate map

Old fake colonial map that exaggerates the size of Europe and shrinks rest of world. Decolonized map that shows a more accurate representation of the world. http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.4034374/a-whole-new-world-why-boston-public-schools-are-adopting-a-different-map-1.4034379 " A whole new world: Why Boston public schools are adopting a different map" This is what I mean when I say those old timers were being taught fake history, fake geography and fake knowledge. They will be quick to call this political correctness, when it is actually the truth and a phony map was invented with fake dimensions to make Europeans feel better about themselves and taught for 500 years. That is the real political correctness.

So for all you people who went off on Muslim terrorism yesterday with the London Muslim guy killing 4 people, I am waiting for you to go off on USA terrorism aka Christian terrorism aka white on brown skin terrorism from the USA Christians bombing 3 houses in Mosul Iraq today killing over 200 civilians. Please explain why when Christians kill 200 women and children Muslims its not terrorism but when Muslims kill 4 Christians it is terrorism. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39383989 " A senior UN official in Iraq said she was stunned by accounts of "terrible loss of life", after claims that at least 200 people had been killed in an air strike by the US-led coalition." Now before you all say they were targeting terrorist, bare in mind, the Muslims claimed they were targeting government terrorist in UK. So explain to me how it is not a double standard.

His target was government, its why he went after police officers. Its why he tried to access government buildings. He knew just driving the car on the sidewalk, there was a good chance he'd hit someone, anyone, tied to government, because that area is full of government workers. Now if he went and bombed a bus in some suburb, or shot up some school (like adam lanza) that would be obvious a much more soft target, he'd probably get away with it or kill alot more people. There was no real logic, to targetting that area, if his job was terrorism. I say this as a person who has been to London, there are areas that are so crowded, in downtown london, where he could pull out a gun, start shooting, and easily kill 200-300 people before a cop could get on the scene.

Some of the stuff goes too far, but alot of Canadians were being heavily sheltered and taught a false history. Your history you were being taught was a stone cold lie. Period.

Because the special prosecutor provision was abolished in the 1990s, meaning that only Trump could appoint a prosecutor who could try him,making him basically immune from prosecution while he is in office.

Its hypocritical to say people having their own schools is segregation but having their own nations is a right.

I doubt it, if he wanted to kill civilians, there is way better places he could have shot and stabbed people.

Child rape and fraud are enough.

Go ask that to the anti-gun lobby. I don't oppose guns so its not my view. I could try to guess what their argument is from my friends who are anti-gun. I think it is something along the lines that increasing the general availability of guns provides more access to people in general, there are lots of idiots in society who shouldn't get near a gun and lots of criminals and criminals with girlfriends/boyfriends who have clean records so can get guns and give them away to the criminals who are shooting off each other and innocent people by accident. Usually their argument is, think of the dumbest person you know, then they'd ask do you want them having a gun? Usually the discussion comes down to, they just don't want people having guns who aren't cops (these are usually city people), they think it is just a bad idea but never really articulate their point well to me. The only good anti-gun argument I can think of is that it escalates arguments into shootouts, when you have stand your ground type laws (aka shoot first laws) in states. I think people should be able to use guns for self defence of home, self defence of cars and valuable property, self defence of land and the person. That doesn't mean you get to shoot someone because you thought... or because they punch you in the face, if you having a life or death fight and can prove it then yes, but it should not apply to people who look for trouble or go following people around. I believe that politicians are the real target but terror groups do not have a conventional army, and no ability to engage in conventional warfare. As a result, they engage in asymmetrical warfare. Which basically just means hit your enemy where they are weak. Where are Western nations weak? Well our politicians are very well protected. We seen a terrorist try to kill Harper and get shot dead by the seargeant of arms. Yet he was able to take out a soldier along the way. Western nations weakness from a military perspective is their open society. Meaning civilians. Now of course we could just become a police state and put officers with bomb sniffing dogs on every corner, but then we would be nazi germany or communist russia (which some politicians seem to not mind). Then again, how many people from bombed out weddings in Iraq anf Afghanistan asking why are their people always the target of our own terrorist governments? How come Afghanistan got bombed for over a decade before Osama Bin Laden was hit? People will say well Osama used civilians as shields, but aren't our own politicians?

It doesn't really matter. It was obvious his intent was to attack a government military institution. Its like saying well the US bombed a couple buildings and killed some innocent civilians on their way to try to kill some terrorist. Doesn't make USA terrorist, just causalities of war. If this guy wanted to kill a bunch of civilians, there would be alot of good targets, better targets, that I won't name because I don't want to give any potential terrorist ideas.

Yes, this is why I described it as the muslim countries.

Meh, if you look hard enough you'll find anything, there are lots of self hating jews, especially european self hating jews because of the whole discrimination thing. After all, when all you hear is how jews are worthless, even some jews start to believe it.

To me it means all the muslim majority country from turkey to pakistan to morocco and saudi arabia.

Duh, the liberal party is popular, not the candidate, Wynne is deeply hated by most liberals, the real question is will the provincial liberal party permit anyone to challenger her. As you know, these parties are private, its not like in the usa where it is open, you cannot just challenge someone, if the party refuses your application, which tends to be the case where a candidate with substantial support.

The thing I don't understand is how come all of Islam gets blamed when a muslim does a crime, but all white people, or all christians don't get blamed when white christians like o, dillan roof commit a crime. Seems like a double standard to me. Also, isn't it the claim of the UK there is a war on terror? And further the UK leader dubs herself the commander and chief. So technically this wouldn't be a terror attack because terror attacks are aimed and targetted towards civilians. This is actually simply an asymmetrical military style assault or suicide mission. It is obvious the British government was the target of the attack. This does kind of make sense given the recent assault on the al qaeda in yemen where a soldier died and attacks on ISIS and all that. Now some might say but they didn't hit the government so it is terrorism! But how many times has the uk and usa bombed and missed the terrorist target for various reasons (ie blowing up weddings)? Does that make USA and UK terrorist or terror attacks? of course not, people need to dial down their terrorism hysteria. If you live in a country who grouped a nation as terrorist, then said we are at war with them, you got to accept they are going to strike every now and then. After all, wars are never one sided, the other side always fights back. Otherwise its not a war, its a surrender. While the terrorist had a minor victory today, I believer freedom wil win in the end, when we completely withdraw from the arab world, all soldiers and support of corrupt governments.

Zero understanding of Trump's fantasy conspiracy theories. Where was the deep state that bush and cheney put in?

1) Donald is a bigger liar, who was on trial for child rape, and fraud while he was still running for president. Donald is a world class corrupt liar and psychopath too. While Clinton is corrupt, Trump was the other side of that corruption 2) There is no alt-left. What you have are blue dog democrats like Clinton and Joe Manchin who are elected by basically being Republican lite and progressive liberals like Sanders, Obama, FDR, LBJ, etc. Had Obama ran again, he'd have won in a landslide, as would have sanders. Obama had over 52% popularity, compared to Trumps 37%. Even Jim Webb would have beaten Trump. Clinton was literally the worst candidate dems could have run. 3) Trump won because Clinton is so unpopular and unlikeable and out of touch with reality. She has not understood how the nation became polarized, she had a bad campaign staff who didn't explain to her that she would not flip southern deep red states like her husband did when he ran, and she should have focuses on the midwest. Clinton was campaigning for republican votes in the final days in places like arizona, ohio, georgia,louisana, florida, north carolina, when she should have been campaigning in michigan, wisconsin and pennsylvania, because that is all she needed to win. Heck she almost lost new hampshire too. It did help Trump alot that the republican congress had redistricted the map to favour republicans. Clintons racist past also hurt her badly, because african americans stayed home and felt comfortable that if Trump won, the nation would do well because of Clinton calling them superpredators and locking them up unjustly. Clinton deserved to lose, terrible candidate.

What about in Alberta where they get full funding, and ONtario where many of them ie catholics and protestants ones get full funding and many of the religious universities are fully funded here in Ontario. I have many friends who went to religious schools, myself partially included, our so called tuition consisted of zero dollars a month right here in ontario. Its not just catholics. Religion already is in government, you already admit that the catholic CHURCH has speciall agreements with government so how the heck can we eliminate it short of constitutional amendment? You are right, government cannot favour one religion over another, not secularism, not catholicism, not athiesm nor islam, so the obvious choice would be to have school choice and permit people to form any kind of charter school within the public system they want so as long as demand exist to support it. Not allowing any religion violates the constitution and violates the principle of tax payer choice and the principle of favouring athiest and secularist over religious groups. Religious people belief that religion is so entangled in life they cannot separate education from religion. As such they formed their own private schools. Eventually, religious people figured wait, why are my property taxes supporting a school system my kids cannot even go to, and they demanded public funding and got it. This is democracy. Tax payers are paying for worship in schools. The religious taxpayers. Why should religious people fund a school system they don't even believe in?

Yeah but the christian prayer and bible stories were being forced. You are talking about a time when kids got beat for refusing to pray, even if they were not religious. The muslim stuff is all voluntary and done in the gym on students own extra time. Christians were never asking for prayer after school programs, they were asking for in class religious teachings as part of the curriculum and the government largely caved to them by agreeing to give them publicly funded religious schools like catholic schools and protestant schools, etc. Alot of muslims are asking if the catholics and protestants get my tax dollars to have their own schools, why can't we? Where is the equality? Canada was never found on a strictly secular basis like the USA which has a constitution which specifies seperation of religion and state. Rather, Canada's constitution explicitly guarantees the rights of religious groups and entangles them into public funding. I don't think people should be allowed to cover their face in any government ceremony, I don't think people should be permitted to testify in court behind a shield, I don't think a person's identity should be hidden in any court action except minors. I think it needs to be all in the open. You accuse a man of rape, well you need to show your face too. None of that man's face is lambasted through the media, but no one know who this woman is. We have religious public funded universities, religious publicly funded schools, etc. I don't agree with eliminatingreligion from government.

You mean like how there is a lawsuit where Trump already showed up in court for? You sound like a rape denier.

This is what is dangerous about Trump supporters, they don't just think they are right, they are unaware of his track record, which is why he is such a dangerous person because people are covering their eyes to the warning signs. "Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-rape-case_us_581a31a5e4b0c43e6c1d9834 Conspiracy theory.