Rue

Bullshit. Scott Mayer started this thread stating that the announcement of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel and I quote: "appears as though he maybe setting up for a suicidal fuck you before he gets impeached " You responded to Mayer stating: "As mentioned the other thread has discussed this issue a fair bit. And impeachment is certainly part of the discourse." So I responded stating you spew nonsense and that Trump could not be impeached for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. You want to play games Omni. Then let's play. When in my comment to you did I misquote you hmmm? Where did I say you said Trump can be impeached for recognizing the capital of Israel hmmm? You are in such haste to defend your crap you engage in the same false assumption you claim I engaged in. Anything else?

If anyone doubted you are an extremist and spambot at least they now know. That script was pathetic.

In regards to 1, Arafat openly was caught on South African radio saying any peace talks he was engaging in were a sham and he had no intention of following through with a two state solution and was using it as a stalling tactic to re-arm. When the statement went public he openly stated he had bargained in bad faith all along and the US and Israel should have known he would never agree to anything but a Muslim state in Jordan, Israel and the West Bank-Gaza and he was only engaging in talks to give his forces time to re-arm. In regards to 2, Abbas has reconfirmed 1 and stood up in his PA assembly giving a standing ovation to fellow members calling for war to take back Israel and he continually repeats the only way he will recognize Israel is as a NON Jewish state which MUST take back ANYONE who claims to be a Palestinian WITHOUT PROOF of being Palestinian provided they are NOT Jewish. This return of "Palestinians" would include being given land and financial compensation and this would be a condition precedent to recognizing this non Jewish state. He has said this would be the first step in then amalgamating it into a greater Sharia law state with Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. He has stated NO rights to non Zionist Jews of theWest Bank (250,000 Hasidic Jews) and they would have to leave or face dire consequences. This is the moderate Abbas and this is what his constitution says and his repeat speeches say. Hamas only differs on that it would remove all Jews from the West Bank and Israel by death or forced expulsion to European nations. 3. Israel prior to the creation of Israel stated and has always maintained ALL of Jerusalem as its capital. Rabin, Olmert, Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres all stated they would agree to sharing the capital as part of a comprehensive peace settlement. 4. The Jerusalem capital sharing issue ended when the Muslim clergy sitting on a board with Christian and Jewish clergy walked out and said they would never agree to Jews or Christians having access to the Mount or Jerusalem being governed by anything but a sharia law nation. 5. The Arab League of Nations, PA, Hamas, does not recognize Jewish right to land ownership and sovereignty anywhere in the Middle East stating the Muslim religion and its sharia laws can not permit such a thing. Likewise to all other non Muslims. Conclusion I already have done the last thing you asked. In a comprehensive peace settlement all 3 religions would have to be recognized as having equal rights. That might require more than a religious council that failed. Its conceivable a second Muslim Palestinian state on the West Bank could use East Jerusalem as its capital. There would be room. However from a practical perspective it won't recognize the Christian land titles where the buildings would end up being situated like Israel does if it were to be in the East side of Jerusalem. Next, the automatic assumption Israel can not have its capital in Jerusalem is part of the larger believe it should not exist as a Jewish state. It it was a Muslim state no one would question it being in Jerusalem. The fact is the Ottoman Empire inherited occupation of Jerusalem. Then the British illegally created Trans Jordan. Britain lied and said TransJordan would be a temporary state. It became a permanent state. It was called the Palestinian state of Transjordan. To this day it has a constitution forbidding Jewish citizenship. It unilaterally was given 90% of the areas where Jordan, Israel and the West Bank were illegally in violation of the British mandate. Churchill admitted in his memoirs the British lied deliberately and created the illegal state of TransJordan to prevent and thwart a Jewish state. He also stated he flooded the West Bank and where Israel is with non Palestinian Muslims to create the impossibility of Jews having a majority population. In fact on the day WW2 was declared by the British there was supposed to be a League of Nations conference to declare TransJordan illegal and find a new country to oversee the creation of a Jewish state where Jordan, the West Bank and Israel are. WW2 broke out and so this never happened. After WW2, the League of Nations disbanded, the UN came about and appointed Elenor Roosevelt Ambassador for displaced Jewish refugees. To make a long story short at that point Europe and the UN ignored her and laughed at her. The Arab nations seeing Jews coming to Palestine had told their European colonial operators and the US that there would be no Jewish state or no oil. Britain had placed colonial governments in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq. It artificially created Iran jamming together three feuding nations, one Kurd, one Shiite, one Sunni to justify its continuing presence posing as mediator of all 3. This same formula was used in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Jordan by the British. In Jordan and Iraq Britain placed two sons of of Faisal the Arab they double crossed. Faisal had agreed to a peaceful Muslim nation next to a Jewish nation. The British and French fearing that alliance would exclude the need for French or British help, lied to Faisal. The French lied to Faisal and said rip up the agreement the Jews were preparing to double cross you. Faisal did. Weitzman who he signed the agreement with called him and said you've been lied to. Faisal said no, and that very day was arrested by the French who unilaterally declared Syria and Lebanon independent nations under their colonial control. Both nations were made up of many feuding factions. To placate Faisal, one son was made King of Jordan, the other Iraq, and the remainder of the Faisal klan was given Saudi Arabia. When WW2 broke out Egypt, Syria and Iraw formed an alliance with Hitler and the Mufti of Jerusalem in Palestine went to Berlin where he lived in a stolen Jewish home broadcasting daily to Arabs in Palestine to fight the British in Palestine and while they were at it wipe out any Jews. After WW2 he fled to the Nazi supporting regime of Iraq. Iraq and Syria created Baath parties based on Nazism. Nasser and Sadat in Egypt based all their policies on Hitler as they both admitted in their memoirs. Jerusalem was never part of any sovereign nation. When Jews in Palestine were abandoned after WW2 the Arab League unilaterally declared war on them. The only reason East Jerusalem got separated from West Jerusalem was because that is where the war ended. Jordan never claimed sovereignty over Jerusalem, only temporary military occupation which it relinquished in 1967. From 1949 to 1967 Jordan's soldiers would openly urinate and defecate on Jewish holy sites ridiculing Jews coming to pray. They allowed Muslim civilians to hack pieces off Jewish holy sites and sell them as souvenirs. They looked the other way as Palestinian terrorists used the West Bank and East Jerusalem to launch terror attacks on Jews in West Jerusalem. They did nothing as all the Jewish synagogues in East Jerusalem were burned down and Jews openly killed and beaten until they left their homes and went on to the West side. Jerusalem other than the West side in Israel has ever been in a sovereign nation. West Jerusalem and all of Israel is NOT recognized by any Arab nation, any Muslim nation or the Palestinian terror cells and appointed reps. I can tell you Muslim clergy to this day protest if Christians or Jews try go to the Mount to pray and the IDF has unfairly to prevent riots let the Muslim clergy have their way to avoid fights. Arafat denied not once but many times that there was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem as has Abbas. According to Abbas in his rewrite of history, since Jerusalem was in fact first created by Canaanites before the Jews came to Jerusalem long before Christians and then Muslims, in his magic rewrite of history Canaanites are Palestinians and thus he uses that argument to say NO part of Jerusalem can be part of a Jewish state or even be accessible to Jews or Christians without a sharia law nation controlling Jerusalem. Most Palestinians and Israelis have co-existed in Jerusalem. The PA and Hamas are not contrary to popular belief popular in Jerusalem because they prevent tourism and they harass Muslims in Jerusalem doing business with Jews of Jerusalem. The PA does not recognize any Christian land rights, the Israelis do. 90% of East Jerusalem has Christian land titles the PA will not recognize and Israel does.

Stop talking reality. Just stop it. Well stated. By the way this well known Zionist like I would suggest the majority of us, would have no issue with a peaceful Palestinian state sharing the capital. 3 different Prime Ministers proposed that only to be told by Arafat et al that they would never under any circumstance recognize a Jewish state. So the issue has never been a stand alone issue. Its not like its the only issue holding up peace. It fact some argue by placating the PA and Arab League over Jerusalem sends the message they do not have to acknowledge the unique reality of Jerusalem as not being a Muslim only city which is the position of the PA and Hamas and Arab League. Placating the denial of the reality of the existence of the JEWISH state of Israel has not enabled discussions, its enabled the status quo to continue. You want reality? 90% of the land Israel built its government buildings and Knesset on are CHRISTIAN church owned. This is why Israel pays rent to these churches. The PA. Hamas and Arab League do not recognize these rights. You hear any of the geniuses on this thread talking about that? The IDF when it went into East Jerusalem in 1967 and ended Muslim vandalism to Christian and Jewish religious sites and enabled access for both Christians and Jews to these sites. To this day there is a panel of religious clergy of Muslims, Christians and Jews. They could create a unique protectorate for all 3 in Jerusalem. Its possible. Problem is the Muslim clergy walked away saying no Christian or Jew should have access to the Mount or other holy sites and they would never recognize any government but a sharia law one. I can tell you that most Israelis are not religious and understand religious Christians, Jews and Muslims each have strong feelings and many of these people are TOURISTS who when they come spend MONEY. Reality for Palestinians is they need tourism to make money and their leaders who hold them captive will never recognize not just the Jewish but Christian demensions to Jerusalem. Palestinian state sharing the cap[itsl

Absolute and utter bullshit and its been responded to.

Your selectivity as to what you will and will not read is evident. Now as for your absence, check with Omni on whether you are entitled to compensation from the Canadian government.

As usual you spew nonsense. Trump can not be impeached for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The above is total and utter bullshit. Its passed off as fact because the people behind these bull shit threads depend on peoples' ignorance as to the actual history of Jerusalem. When someone like me responds and points out the actual history and facts they then rely on you not to read hoping like them you stop after one sentence and have equally as limited an attention span. I make an effort to debunk this shit because I believe it is my moral obligation. To start with, Jerusalem or “Yerushalayim” which in Hebrew is יְרוּשָׁלַיִם) is and has never been a Arabic name and it has never referred to Muslims. That is a total and utter lie. In fact it can be traced back to the Middle Bronze age. The name it was called and is still called ibn Arabic is Al-Quds (القدس) and Bayt Al-Maqdis (بيت المقدس), meaning holy city. This is how much of a liar Altai is. Jerusalem or Urusalim (URU ú-ru-sa-lim) or Urušalim is what it was referred to when using the Amarna or Abdi-Heba scripts which can be traced back to the 1330’s BCE. Amarna letters of Abdi-Heba . It refers to the name BETH SHALEM. In Sumero-Akkadian which also calls Jerusalem Urusalim it meant, created by or founded by the God Shalim. In Hebrew Shalim means cornerstone but in Sumero-Akkadian, it refered to the God Shalim who was in fact a Canaanite God of the setting sun, hell and health. So its derivation has nothing to do with Muslims or Arabic. Nothibng. The hebrew word Yerushalaim was transtaled into ancient Greek and Latin as Hierousalem/Hierosolyma and in early Syriac Christian Bibles as Ierousalem Latin Hierosolyma or Ierusalem. In Arabic this name when used was Urusalim (أورسالم) but as I stated it would be referred to in Arabic not as the simple translation from Hebrew but as Al Quds and Altai knows that more than anyone because “she” has come on this forum in the past referring to Al Quds day a yearly demonstration to commemorate losing the war to Israel and organizing demonstrations calling for the recapture of all of Israel including Jerusalem. In fact the component name "Shalem", also is derived from the same root as the word "shalom", city of peace. The other component in the word AYIM is how in Hebrew words are made plural and it was made plural as opposed to singular because the city sits on two hills. Another explanation is if you go to the Bible and Genesis (Rabbah) 56:10, Jerusalem the name is explained as a mic of the words YIREH which means “He will see to it," and “Shalem” which referred to the city of King Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18. The scholar Philo claimed Jerusalem meant, "God's city" and midrashim which is commentary by Rabbiahs explaining the words of the Bible refers to Jerusalem as meaning"City of Peace”. No one let alone Muslim scholars have ever said it means city of Islam which is why I have stated on previous threads I doubt Altai is a Muslim because to say such stupid things defies what any Muslim with any knowledge of Arabic or Islamic history woyuld say. Jerusalem, was not originally built nor named by the Hebrews (Israelites) and Jews lived in it long before Muslims came about. The Cannanite town called Salem as I stated would date back to the early middlebronze age, and the first Biblical mention of this place is in Genesis 14:18, where Abraham and Melchizedek meet. The name Jerusalem occurs in Joshua 10:1 and the city of Jerusalem was said to have been conquered, sacked and apparently abandoned by Israel in Judges 1:8 but then remained occupied by JEBUSITES. According to Judges 1:21 it was originally located in the territory of Benjamin and then in 2 Samuel 5:6 , it says 400 years later King David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites, annexed it and made it his capital . So this had NOTHING to do with Muslims an din fact by the time Hebrews made it our capital it already existed as Salem. Jerusalem as I said is built on TWO hills and they were referred to by Isaiah as the Hills of Jerusalem in Isaiah 10:32. There is some misunderstanding when its translated as meaning “Hill” not “Hills” of Jerusalem but that is a minor error caused by not understanding the plural meaning of Jerusalem in Hebrew. No one fights over the reality there are two hills in Jerusalem or that the city is built on these hills. When one moves from the Old to the New Testament which is the verses Christians follow and they would come after the Jews in chronology, they used the term Hierosoluma which is plural in Mathew 2:1 and singular feminine in Matthew 23:37I (Hiersolem). In Mark 1:5 a resident of Jerusalem was called a Hierosolumite. Those are ancient Greek words. Hieros means sacred. Hierus means Priest. Again nothing to do with Islam. Psalm 76:2 used the term "Salem" for "Zion", which was the citadel of Jerusalem. The scholar Josephus who many rely on (and some say is not 100% accurate) and the Aramaic translation of the Bible, (Armaic being the language Jesus spoke) also used the above term/. Jerusalem has in the past been referred to as IR DAVID, (City of David) which is also used for the name of the site south of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In Judges 19:10 it is referred to as the City of Jebus. In Jeremiah 31:22 its referred to as Naweh Sadeq (נְוֵה-צֶדֶק). In Isaiah 29:1:8 it is called ARIEL (אֲרִיאֵל). Its also been referred to in Hevrew as, עיר הקודש, which means Ir Ha Kodesh, City of the Holy Place. No Muslim scholar would dispute the above. They have no need to. Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638. This would be where the “Old City” or East Jerusalem is today which prior to 1967 was occupied by Jordan which used to be called Trans Jordan. This old city of Jerusalem would grow when the Romans took it over. The Christians then captured it in the 11th century, then it was capturede by the Khwarezmi Turks and would have only had about 8,000 people under Ottoman Empire rule in the 19th century. In fact the Arabic name of Jerusalem, القدس, or Al-Quds began to be used in 9th century CE, two hundred years AFTERthe Muslim conquest of the city. Prior to the name Al-Quds, it was called in Arabic, إيلياء, Iliya which comes from the Latin word AELIA or (from the Latin بيت المقدس , Bayt Al-Maqdis or Bayt Al-Muqaddas which then evolved to the word Al Quds. Bayt Al-Maqdis in Arabic in effect comes from the Hebrew name for the Temple in Jerusalem. Bayt Al-Maqdis means "The House of the Holy". The word QUDS in Arabic means "holy". The word, al-Quds aš-Šarīf was used by the Ottomans who also used the Persian/Farsi name, Kuds-i Şerîf. In Arabic Al-Quds means holy, and لقدس الشريف or Al-Quds aš-Šhareef, means Holy Sanctuary. You want a source here: source: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jerusalem.html

I have argued that Scott Mayer, Hudson Jones, Marcus et al, use the identical script over and over again. One of the things these supposed individuals do is to constantly put the shrinking map falsehood on threads about Israel over and over again. The technique is based on a simple principal, if you repeat the same lie or falsehood repeatedly, it will become true. In fact the shrinking map argument is placed on this form in each and every post or thread about Israel. http://edgar1981.blogspot.ca/2014/05/countering-shrinking-palestine-maps-lie.html http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/07/debunking-map-that-lies.html http://www.catholicsforisrael.com/articles/israel-today/188-israel-palestine-when-the-map-lies Interestingly whenever the shrinking maps technique is exposed as a sham none of the Middle East experts who present this shit on this forum follow up and respond.

No. The Czech Republic has never commented on West or East Jerusalem. It simply says Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and its possible for a second Muslim Palestinian state to have it as their capital too. That's all Trump has said as well. Trump has never stated Jerusalem should not or can not be the capital of a Palestinian state on the West Bank. The problem with you and the majority of the people on this thread are you don't read or have a clue about the history of Jerusalem or what the PA did in regards to this issue. In fact three not one, three Israeli Prime Ministers as part as peace offers, offered to share Jerusalem with a Palestinian state, Rabin, Olmert and Peres. Arafat told all three he would never accept any solution other than all of Israel and Jordan merged with the West Bank and Gaza into a Muslim sharia law state. That is the current position of the PA and Hamas. They do not recognize any right of Israel to be anything but a Muslim state. In fact Abbas and Hamas have stated that repeatedly.. In fact the official position of the Arab League of Nations is that Israel can NOT exist as a JEWISH state which is why they do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, it has to do with not recognizing not just the capital, but the entire nation. The refusal by the Arab League, Hamas and the PA is not about a stand alone issue as to the choice of where Israel's capital is, its its existence as a Jewish state and its right to exist. Even if the "capital" was in Tel Aviv, these same parties have made it clear they do not and will NEVER recognize Israel as a Jewish state anywhere in the Middle East. None of the experts on Jerusalem on this thread will mention that.

I will only waste my energy with you. The reality is Israel is and has always been Israel's capital. The reality is no nation in the world can dictate to Israel where to put its capital but they do. Can you imagine telling Saudi Arabia they can't put their capital in Riyadh or Iran they can't put their capital in Tehran or telling Canada they can't put their capital in Ottawa. The issue isn't where Israel puts its capital its that the world has capitulated to the Arab League of Nations, Muslim oil rich nations and extremist nations like Iran, fearing a backlash for recognizing Jerusalem as the state capital of Israel. Look at the rhetoric Scott Mayers uses. This kind of shrill oh my God the world will blow up reaction is what of course I expect from people who live in sheltered environments and fear extremist reactions. The world will end oh my God. Give me a fucking break. The reality is the PA and Hamas do NOT and will never recognize a Jewish state of Israel and want all of Israel back as a Muslim state but these leftist twits engage in this fantasy that; a-the only issue is settlements on the West Bank; ii-Jerusalem can't be the capital of Israel. The fact is many of the people who feel Jerusalem should not be the capital of Israel don't believe the state should exist but they won't have the balls to say that on this or any other forum. They will isolate the issue as they do the settlement issue, pretending they are stand alone issues. They are not. Even if a two state solution comes about, Jerusalem will be the capital for Israel no different than it would be for this alleged second Palestine nation if they recognized a Jewish state. One does not preclude the other. The point Trump made is that nations have held off recognizing Jerusalem as capital of Israel saying it needs to be part of a larger settlement plan of two nations living side by side. That's nice but since the 1920's and to this day, not ONE, not one Arab or Palestinian politician will recognize a Jewish state of Israel ANYWHERE and the current PA and Hamas have made it clear they will never stop until Israel is turned back into a Muslim state merged into a larger state with Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank. That is the position of the PA and Hamas and its always been. So isolating the Jerusalem issue to placate Arab League nations and the PA or Hamas for fear they will have tantrums on the streets and engage in violence means what? Trump did what Trump does and said FUCK YOU. He said FUCK YOU to threats of tantrums. He said you have 4 years before we physically move either get off the toilet and engage in serious peace talks where you stop denying the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, and make a deal based on that reality, anything else is up for talks. That is all he said. Problem is because its Trump no one is listening. Because its Israel no one listens. People simply assume and go off on tangents trying to isolate the Jerusalem issue as a stand alone issue. Its not and has never been. All Trump did was state the obvious. Every day diplomats travel to the capital in Jerusalem. They engage in fiction and pretend they ain't doing so because their offices are in Tel Aviv. The Knesset and government buildings are all in Jerusalem. Next, Israel pays rent every month to Christian churches who own the land on which the Knesset and all its government buildings are situated on. The PA and Hamas and Arab League of Nations unlike Israel do not recognize the Christian land rights, Israel does. So this is in fact not just a legal issue between the Palestinians and Israel its with Christian land owners in East Jerusalem which the Palestinians claim exclusively. The PA and Hamas recognize no Jewish or Christian land titles or rights of access ibn East Jerusalem. Let's be clear in a comprehensive peace agreement if there was a capital for the second Palestinian state and Israel both in Jerusalem it would have to be carefully planned. It would also have to incorporate and recognize Christian land rights. Israel has made it clear it will continue to recognize Christian land rights. It did not build any Israeli government building on land owned by Palestinians. Let's also be clear. Up until 1967 Muslims controlled East Jerusalem and pissed and defecated on and destroyed sacred Jewish sites in Jerusalem. When Israel went in to East Jerusalem in 1967 it said never again will our sites be treated in such a manner. The three religions have equal religious connections to the city and its a unique situation that would eventually have to be considered a special site for all three in some kind of international agreement but we are not there. We are not there because Palestinians will not recognize a Jewish state in Israel under any circumstance, and will not recognize Christian and Jewish access or land title rights in East Jerusalem. Sitting in a stalemate in fantasy land with the status quo has not worked. Maybe this will start something. It could yes trigger street riots and tantrums. So? Is that something new? The current status quo is open street warfare in East Jerusalem where at a moment's notice a civilian in the name of Palestine liberation of Israel could attack and kill someone indiscriminately. That's the status quo. That is something that needs to change. I finish by saying I believe the Jerusalem capital issue does not and will not negate the ability to create a second Palestinian nation anymore than settlements on the West bank will. Both issues are certainly seen by Palestinians as affronts to their dignity but they are not stand alone issues. They are all interconnected just as Canada and the world say.

Oh you might want to spell Israeli correctly. You also made a sweeping statement as if you are an expert on the security and terrorist issues in and on the West Bank. You might want to go there. This posing as an expert on the security issues lacks any credibility. The sad fact is and you have no clue as to it, the confined and tiny parameters we are dealing with makes the borders with Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and the West Bank create very real security issues for many governments not just Israel. There are over 300 active Palestinian terrorist cells on the West Bank not to mention Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Fatah, all in a declared state of terrorism against Israel. The states of Syria and Lebanon remain in a declared state of war with Israel. Jordan and Israel because of instability in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, the West Bank, have formed a security alliance with Egypt. This idiotic idea one walks out of the West Bank and there is no security risk to Jordan, Israel and Egypt let alone Palestinian civilians is beyond comprehension. Your bias against Israel of course leads to such comments. In your world the terrorism on the West Bank is just a fantasy as is the instability in the Middle East.

I would expect the comment comparing me to Harvey Weinstein. You show once again when it comes to discussing Israel, you engage in anti Jewish taunts, remarks that suggest because he is a Jew and I am a Jew, and he is clearly an odious individual, that you can throw that kind of comment. It has nothing to do with the state of Israel's existence or the settlement issue and everything to do with you making a slur suggesting because we are both Jewish it makes us one and the same. That is the classic kind of anti semitism I have challenged on this board. Comments that have everything to do with inciting hatred against Jews and nothing to do with discussing the settlement issue. You also lied. My words are on the forum for all to read. At no time did I state that asking Israel to remove itself from the West Bank is terrorism. That is another in a never ending series of lies from you. People can clearly read what I write. You use the settlement issue as a cover, a pretext, a lame excuse to piss on Israel. That is what I said. I have never once stated or supported as a long term peace solution an Israeli state on the West Bank despite efforts by you or other anti Israelis trying to suggest that is my position. What I have called you out on is your false use of the Palestinian conflict to piss on all Jews. Yah I know we are all Harvey Weinsteins. Got it. Now your comment that Zionism is a cancer that needs to be wiped out is there for all to see. I will repeat it as long as you are on this thread just as I will repeat you exploit the Palestinian conflict. You use it as a front to advance an agenda that has NOTHING to do with Palestinians and everything to do with a form of extreme Muslim violent fundamentalism you champion. You want to deny that? Lol. You want to deny after the crap you have placed on this board you are not a champion of Hamas, Fatah, anyone and anything who believes in the violent overthrow and taking of Israel and turning it into a Muslim state? Zionism is a cancer that needs to be wiped out. Oh I got it. Just like I got the Harvey Weinstein comment and then you being so lame as to deny you are an anti semite after making the comment. Run along and misrepresent someone else. My words are there for anyone to read. Like, falsely misrepresent them, all anyone has to do is read them back.

Criminal law is about regulating social behaviour. It can't flex to suit individual circumstances. If it did then then each decision would be accused of being inconsistent and unfair. Remember this is criminal law not private civil law. In private civil law, Judges can consider individual circumstances when determining damages and behaviour. That said, it was in June of 2006 when the age of consent went from 14 to 16 but its not that simple because depending on whether the person engaging in sex is of the older age but is in a relationship of trust, authority or dependency, that 16 year mark is not absolute. So to be clear whole a person must be at least 16 years old to be able to legally agree to sexual activity its not an absolute. As well someone 14-15 is allowed to consent to sex provided the partner is no more than 5 years older. As well 12-13 years can consent to sex provided the person is less than two years older. In both the above mentioned situations there can be no relationship of trust, authority, dependency of exploitation. Sexual exploitation is the legal term now used where you would otherwise have the legal right to have sex but your position of trust or authority makes it illegal, i.e., you are a foster parent, teacher, coach, clergy, business manager, someone the child is financially dependent on. The laws above have nothing to do with God. If they did then Christians would point out Joseph was far older than Mary as some did in defense of Moore. Traditional Christianity, Judaism and today's mainstream Islam and many societies say one a girl men engages in menstration she is capable of sex and birthing children. Rules of sex in the past may have been justified by religions but were based on the primal function of reproduction. Any female capable of having her cycle was considered sexually acceptable. The concept of being a pedophile or a hebephile or engaging in sexual assault and exploitation has evolved and its a mix of the moral standards of the day and changing psychiatric definitions of sexual disorders that reflect the morality of the day at times. Criminal law is very much a reflective mirror of the moral standards of the day. At one point it defined sodomy as a criminal offence and said a prostitute.female sex worker could not be able to plead she was sexually assaulted given her profession. The fact is we have an entire marketing and entertainment industry that sexualizes children and uses sex to sell movies and products and portrays sexuality in provocative ways. Western social standards as to sexuality have widely fluctuated. In the 1960's the pendelum swung to wide open sex with indiscriminate partners and a confused female identity trying to balance being treated equally with their desire to choose not committed sex just like men. Gays and women came out so to speak as part of a general civil rebellion by blacks in the US and then all kinds of other minority groups to unfair treatment by the law. One man's LSD trip sexual encounter in a crowd with a woman at Woodstock also under the influence would not have raised an eyebrow and didn't as people openly had sex at Woodstock rolling in the mud. We went top cocaine fueled sex orgies and the Playboy mansion, Penthouse and Screw Magazine defending liberalism and sexual use of women as masterbatory objects at the same time. Gloria Steinhem had no problem providing an editorial to Playboy. You read back now the sexual standards of the 60's and 70's you can see there was a great deal of identity confusion brought on by wide spread use of drugs and the concept being promiscuous was part of the hip lifestyle. Now we see the pendelum swinging to an extreme reaction to it. Its posed as me too reactions to men being depicted and exposed as having harassed sexuality which may or may not entail actual sexual penetration by fornification once called rape. Rape was defined as penetration. Now its any act of unconsented sexual behaviour including technically touching, groping, kissing. So as we speak we have a litany of me too stories coming out and people being fired. All that said age has to be a reference. There's very few objective criteria one can use as markers to define sexual behaviour. Its one of the few. Your comment, " It would be best to find a means to measure maturity and conditional circumstances " is easy to say but try come up with a law to protect non consenting people without age as a measuring and conditional circumstance. I would suggest to you it would be impossible. I would also suggest to you there is no absolute way to measure maturity. Maturity is inherently an approximation point that varies in each individual. It could refer to physical characteristics, emotional ones, cognitive processing skills. You can have someone who is incredibly intelligent but has the maturity or physicality of a very young person making them easy to exploit. You have very emotionally aged abused children whose bodies are physically damaged. I've worked in the legal system with sexually abused children, geriatrics, women, disabled, and men. They come in all ages, ethnicities, sexual preferences and behaviours. Consenting sex between adults of equal values and power is no concern. Where it gets problematic is any relationship where there is violence or a marked imbalance in power is triggering an abusive relationship(s). The law does not have the ability or luxury to be vague and have some wide open definition that will never lead to consistent regulation. It has to define limits and age is as I said one of the few ways to do it.

Hudson Jones you stated: "Today I had a meeting with the manager at Superstore, with a petition, requesting for them to remove produce sent from illegal settlements on Palestinian land, marked as if its from Israel. They have temporary put a halt on putting the produce out until they investigate this issue." That's interesting. Now tell everyone your real name and what you do for a living and why you petition people on behalf of BDS. Go on tell everyone you are an activist Canadian with nothing better to do than the above. Next you stated: "BDS is working and it's scaring the international law violators." In your mind no doubt. Those "international law violators" is your latest encoded and couched reference to Jewish Israelis. You don't have the balls to say so and let me tell you, you frighten no one. You are a legend in your own mind or whatever other pen name you want to use. I just call you Moe.

No there is not just like there is no excuse for you to come on this forum pretending to be someone you are not and pushing an agenda to eradicate the state of Israel's existence and exploiting the Palestinian conflict to do so. There is no excuse for your support of Hamas, the PA, terrorism and being in favour of Muslim states but not a Jewish one.

Hudson Jones stated: "Who cares about Hamas' charter? Hamas was not even around when the PLO signed and officially accepted the State of Israel within the green line." Hudson Jones shows in the above how lacking in credibility he is. In one breath he loudly protests that settlements on the West Bank are an obstacle to peace, then in the next says he does not care how a terrorist group literally feet away from Israeli soil and engaged as we speak in a terrorist war to destroy Israel as a Jewish state and turn it into a Sharia law state is not an obstacle to peace. In one sentence he shows vividly he is a supporter of Hamas and is not interested in any opinion other than the destruction of Israel. Good work Hudson Jones that was credible.

This can also not be denied; 1-When presented the actual legal wording relevant to the dispute you did not respond because you have no clue how to respond. 2-Your position is that Israel should not exist as a Jewish state. You said Zionism is a cancer that must be wiped out. That is your agenda. Discussing the legality of settlements given that position makes your focusing on the settlement issue clear-you use the settlement issue as a prop, a pretense, a vehicle to justify denying the entire state of Israel existing as a Jewish state. 3-Settlements of course are an obstacle to peace and would have to be part of an overall comprehensive peace agreement but for someone like you and Marcus, whose agenda is to deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, what can not be denied is you use Palestinians and their predicament, you exploit it to advance your script which is not about Palestinians but eradicating Israel as a Jewish state. If you in fact cared about Palestinians you would understand how discussing settlements and achieving peace can not and will never come about as long as it embraces leaders whose position is to take back all of Israel and turn it and Jordan into one large Sharia state.

Interesting. When you make sweeping generalizations like the above you show you don't debate you are here to propagate the script you have been assigned. You think sweeping comments like the above make you credible?

You started the thread to criticize the state of Israel for existing. Whose position would I present other than Israel's to counter your script.? Should I quote Tonga's position. I love Tonga.

They will send us all to education camps for rehabilitation starting with you. Then when they fail we can claim to be terrorists tortured by them and ask for $50 million each.

I do. I for one had issues as to politicians engaging in platitudes. I think the above coalition proved it was just a bunch of bull shit politicians spitting out platitudes to make it look good for their images in front of their constituents. It was a classic make us look like we are doing something project. Now while you are on the topic. it wasn't done hot in response to a specific political incident and it did not use the same wording as the bill I question otherwise yes I would have had the identical problem. Since you raised it, I put no credence or credibility in any government Parliamentary coalition. Its political bull shit to make politicians look like they are doing something. Attitudes and behaviour won't cha spewing platitudes and no Justin Trudeau won't shed a tear for Jews-they don't bring with them as many votes as the Muslim constituency he thinks he has captive. If he ever tries that stunt I will be the first to tell him to phack off. Its also a little late. The moron stood up at Holocaust day and never once mentioned Jews and then attended some bullshit unveiling of a holocaust memorial that made no mention of Jews in the plaque. As for Jason Kenney, I don't remember him attending radical mosques or appointing as his Middle East advisor a pro Hamas anti semitic advocate called Omar Alleghbra who has openly called for the destruction of Israel and condoned terrorism of Hamas. I know I was at own of his meetings. I also don't remember Kinney suggesting we bring ISIL or other terrorists back into Canada to "re-educate" them. So no of course Kenney did not give me the same concerns as Trudeau does. Your attempt to suggest I engage in a double standard is noted. You might want to try again.

Thank you for the operative wording and the question for me is not the above wording simply why Islamophobia was singled out. I know it sounds like I am engaging in a war of semantics but for me its a big issue. If you single out one form of hatred above all others it panders to that group-it courts favour with that mentioned group which for me ruins what it intended to do, bring people together-instead it divides by singling Muslims out. It singled out Islamphobia twice and for me what is wrong with that is that it panders to Muslims by deliberately singling them out. Its wrong to single Muslims out. Trudeau is doing it. He's the one singling Muslims out and I think that's bad. Here's my argument. The above bill would not have caused a look from anyone if it didn't single out the word Islamophobia. It would have been even more powerful in my opinion not drawing special attention to Islamic hatred. because it did not have to. You see the hate crime did. However by twice singling out Muslims, it did at one level however well intended do what the sick idiot did who singled out Muslims in the Mosque attack. Its part of this singling out of people for specific treatment I do not like. Everyone of us is a Muslim in the sense that NONE of us should be a target of crime or hatred or terrorism or engage in it. Trudeau said yesterday its Islamophobic to argue against his policy of repatriation and rehabilitation of ISIL TERRORISTS. He engaged the Muslim card arguing if Muslims are terrorists its anti Muslim to challenge their terrorism. That is just wrong. Trudeau wants it both ways. He wants to use the Muslim card to get special favour for Muslim terrorists coming back to Canada but why? Why should any terrorist of any religion be repatriated? That's the issue.How is it anti Muslim? The concerns about repatriating the terrorists is as to their extremist beliefs. If they want to use Islam or any thing else to advance that extremism its not protected and given special cover by Trudeau and liberals on this forum. There should be no magic carte blanche bull shit anti Muslim accusation that prevents challenging Trudeau's idiotic beliefs. I don't give a damn what religion the terrorist is. Thinking you can send them to school to be "deradicalized" is past stupid- its the fantasy of sheltered morons who are endangering Canadians and think if they make boogy men cuddly poof they become cuddly. I have witnessed terrorism. I have seen who does it. These scum don't go to school and poof change. What an idiotic unrealistic moronic thing to believe let alone to single out all Muslims as if when we criticize Muslim terrorists all Muslims as Trudeau assumes, will believe its an attack on them. Oh horse shit. The point is no terrorist in ISIL is going to change because of some idiotic course given to them. When people fear bad things, one way they can cope is to turn the monster into a misunderstood victim. Terrorists aren't misunderstood victims as Trudeau has posed them. Trudeau poses them as victims. They aren't victims they create victims. They made choices. They chose violence and terror. I know people who have walked out of the very same environment and did not turn to terror, they turned to practicing law, social work, medicine, using their hearts, their minds and their souls to pull themselves out of the dismal reality of the here and now and yet Trudeau and his legend of morons don't focus and welcome them-he focuses on terrorists. He hasn't a clue what it means to come out of a bad environment and work your way out. He's a sheltered idiot. He's never worked for a damn thing. He thinks all things are givens and when you question him he has tantrums in Parliament, narcissist hissy fits when questioned. How dare someone question Justin Trudeau. How dare you. You insolent Muslim hater you. Oh Phack Trudeau's patronization. Muslims come to this country to flee terrorism. They came here to get away from it. More Muslims are killed by terrorists overseas then anyone else and Trudeau not me, not Argus, not Ironside, is the one lumping them all together as one. If you are a member of ISIL you belong in jail whether you are a Canadian citizen or immigrant. Your being Muslim is not the issue. Your being a member of a radical Muslim group is. This is Canada.There can be no room, no tolerance for terrorists. For that matter whether you are a Canadian or an immigrant, if you want to perpetuate beliefs that are anti-semitic, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti tolerance and freedom of speech, ant-democratic don't as Trudeau does stand up in the House shedding tears for gays one moment and pander and then the next attend to and support Muslim or any other extremist fundamentalist groups. In fact Justin Trudeau is the exact opposite of his father. His father was my MP. Pierre Trudeau was clear he would never single out any one group for an apology. His son has now made a mockery out of his crying sessions. A week does not go by he does not lecture people and cry. What a sniveling twit. Oh boo hoo. Someone get this ameoba a spinal cord. This sniveling snit of a snot showed up at a holocaust memorial which had a plaque that made no mention of Jews. This is an idiot who has attended other holocaust memorials and never mentioned Jews but he sure as hell has no problem singling out Muslims when he wants to. This two faced selective sniffler had nothing to say when Muslims attended an Al Quds gathering at Queen's Park singing and shouting, chop off the heads of Jews, knife them, kill them. Not a peep. Not a peep from Trudeau over the anti semitic speeches coming out of the same Mosques he attended for worship. Not a peep out of him about mosques spewing anti gay, anti semitic, anti woman hate comments out. Not a damn peep but hey he cries. He cries you know for gays, aboriginals and whatever the trendy issue of the day is next week to keep people focused away from the fact his finance Minister is a corrupt, dishonest, elitist liar and he Trudeau has bankrupt this nation with out of control deficits, unskilled illegal migrants dependent on the government and can't even pay his friggin civil servants.. There is a way to commemorate pain and suffering without politicians using it to pander for votes. Ceremonies recognizing contribution, sacrifice, past sufferings of Canadians should be done by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen our ceremonial and NEUTRAL head of state or each province's Lt. Gov. General not elected politicians. There should be no appearance of partisan manipulation of someone's pain and suffering. That's my opinion. As for Muslims I don't care what they wear, what they say, if they act like peaceful people I have no problems-bring intolerant hateful views to us and expect us to support them, No. Who the phack says I must tolerate intolerance. What bs.

First off M103 deliberately singled out only one type of discrimination/hate for condemnation and that is why people like me challenged it as pandering. Don't lump all people like me in with others who felt it will enable sharia law to be enacted, thank you. Next, stop trying to lump me or others in as being anti Muslim because we detest Muslim terrorists. Nothing in what Ironside said requires clarification as to where he stands. He like I can't stand terrorists whether they are Muslim or any thing else.

Your response as usual is illogical. Whether a Muslim is born in Canada or comes to Canada was not my point. Their using their religion as justification for their religious beliefs was. The issue was not whether the person engaging in terror was born in Canada or elsewhere-its what motivated them. You clearly did not understand the response. Now if you want to be irrational and argue a Muslim terrorist born in Canada is different than a Muslim terrorist who comes to Canada, knock yourself out.