Rue

1. You misrepresent what I said to try get attention and play the victim yet again. 2. The no. 3 does coincide with the 3 Stooges. 2. Skunk is the same in German and English. 3. A skunk whether its from the Muslim world, Germany or Canada has the same stench. http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/OnlinePred.pdf .

Ya think? https://gcn.com/articles/2012/04/02/social-media-analytics-hits-privacy-line.aspx http://www.cbsnews.com/news/terrorists-take-recruitment-efforts-online/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/informant-nypd-paid-me-to-bait-muslims/ See I don't give a damn what religion you claim to be or who you claim to be a citizen of. Your fishing is out in the open: http://www.sportfishjunkies.com/fishing/muslim-lake-ontario-canada-1 Come on let's play. Who is the fisherman> Is it Door No. 1- Is it a Teen Age Muslim Girl calling on Muslim Elders to educate young Muslims http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/homosexuality-in-iraq-and-saudi-arabia/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/2/iran-passes-pedophilia-law-let-men-marry-adopted-g/ https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/world/asia/us-soldiers-told-to-ignore-afghan-allies-abuse-of-boys.html or is it Door No. 2: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/undercover-fbi-agents-swarm-the-internet-seeking-contact-with-terrorists/ or is it Door No. 3 http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/OnlinePred.pdf to be continued.

"Marcus" et al have been putting me on ignore for 6 years. Of course I am not hear to shut down debate when there is any talk of Israel. I am here to challenge comments about Israel when its not about Israel, i..e, Israeli state policy, but when Israel is used as the pretense or excuse for in fact engaging in comments that deny the right of Israelis to be Jewish, deny Israelis the right of a Jewish state or deny any Jew the right to express ourselves as a political collective identity. I have challenged Marcus and Ghost and others when there discussion is not in fact about Israel but is an attack on Israelis as people and for being Jewish and demonizing us. Ghost initiated a thread with a title that clearly incited a smeer on all Israelis. He depicted all Israelis as blood thirsty engaging in dishonest parsing removing words out of their context and resubmitting them to appear to be saying something they did not. He depicted Israelis and Jews as blood thirsty and enjoying killing. He enagged in and was exposed for engaging in an anti semitic canard, a pathetic, shallow anti semitic stereotype of the blood thirsty Jew, a worn re-tread, and re-cycling of the blood libel anti semites have used against Jews for thousands of years only now we aren't blood thirsty about Christ but Palestinians. Marcus claims his time is valuable to him. Such bull shit. His time is spent on this board pissing on Israelis for being Jewish. he's got time for that suddenly he whines and his time is valuable when he has to defend himself and run and hide from me with the pathetic " I am putting you on hold " petulant behaviour. He can't control me so he runs-that's his way of debating-running when he can't get his way. Lol. He doesn't come on this board to question Muslims for having Muslim states. He doesn't come on this board to hold Muslims to the same standards he holds Jews. He is here to promote an agenda that wants Israel dismantled as a Jewish state and turned into a Muslim one. He doesn't have the balls to finish it and state his complete agenda is although he passively refers to it. He and Ghost and whatever other of their name appears on this forum will never be Omar, Abdul, Muhammed, Ali, Nasir, Kareem, Anwar, Yasir, Gamel, Hussein, Farouk, Mustafa, Amir- that you can be sure of. So I say to "Marcus", "Ghost Hacked" whatever handle you want to use, your whining that I shut down debate is a joke. You can't handle a Jew talking back so you whine. You play victim of the bad Jew who won't let you smeer Jews without a challenge. Awah awah awah, how dare I speak back and challenge your bigotry, your hatred. You are whiny one trick pony James Hudson Bay Fraser Valley Rocky Mountain Tim Horton or whatever name you want to go buy. Depict Jews unfairly and with hatred, piss on Israeli Jews and demonize them for defending themselves against terrorism you know where to find me. This whining to an imagined audience for help against this bad bad Jew, ahah. Better call Tax Me. You leftists don't seem to fussy who you crawl into bed with as long as they hate Jews now do you... You want to spew, it, here is the response:: cite:http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-wistrich-f04.htm Anti-Zionism has become the most dangerous and effective form of anti- Semitism in our time, through its systematic delegitimization, defamation, and demonization of Israel. Although not a priori anti-Semitic, the calls to dismantle the Jewish state, whether they come from Muslims, the Left, or the radical Right, increasingly rely on an anti-Semitic stereotypization of classic themes, such as the manipulative "Jewish lobby," the Jewish/Zionist "world conspiracy," and Jewish/Israeli "warmongers." One major driving force of this anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism is the transformation of the Palestinian cause into a "holy war"; another source is anti-Americanism linked with fundamentalist Islamism. In the current context, classic conspiracy theories, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, are enjoying a spectacular revival. The common denominator of the new anti-Zionism has been the systematic effort to criminalize Israeli and Jewish behavior, so as to place it beyond the pale of civilized and acceptable conduct." Tell the mean Jew to stop! Hah.

Makes perfect sense you sympathize with and cheer on a sociopath with penis anxiety.

So clarify is it a photo of: Ozgu Namal Saadet Oksoy Cansu Dere Sedef Avci Lol does it matter? You've made it a point to start proseltyzing, it should be no wonder your picture is suddenly clear again and does not hide the facial features. Recruiters. People who fish. One thing I learned is, they always think the bait they use will work. You assume your audience is desperate and hungry and in need of your line. Keep pulling. All you are going to get is a boot. These waters were polluted long ago.

Its clear what bait you use. . Guess you won't be catching an Atlantic goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara) or tetraogidae with it, that is for sure but maybe some castomidae. http://thismuslimgirlbakes.blogspot.ca/2015/04/fish.html or http://www.mei.edu/content/map/isis-and-institution-online-terrorist-recruitment http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-interview-with-an-extremist-recruiter-a-999557.html http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Terrorists-Recruit-Teenagers-Online-Through-Websites-Social-Media-291010561.html Maybe I should switch my dog photo to Gal Gadot.

No not just based on age. The biological age is but one factor and not its not my definition. The fact that you even responded pretending you think the concept of law of minors is only based on biological age isn't something I would come on this forum and brag about. There is a reason certain 16 to 18 year olds despite being defined as minors, are treated as adults. Zip over your head. As well if your brain can't conceive that certain children of the same biological age are quite different in their ability to accept responsibility and how some children are forced to grow up fast and become adults despite their biological age precisely because they had to take on responsibilities and that makes them adults or more on the level of adults, is pretty sad, Your negative attention seeking ends now with me. .

...and you provide a perfect example of a one trick pony who comes on this forum engaging in the latest form of anti Semitism trying to justify your hatred of Jews by replacing the word Jew with Zionist. You smeer me for being a Jew but use the term Zionist you do it repeatedly to hijack any or all threads regardless of the topic to question the right of Jews to be a political collective identity and to justify making comments that smeer Jews for choosing to have a political identity. You come on this board to engage in t he latest recycle form of anti-Semitism because your comments do not speak to Israeli state policies and criticize those policies, and instead are made to negatively stereotype all Israelis for being Jews and Israeli. Your comments are anti-Semite precisely because you show hatred at any Jew if they believe they have the same right to nationality your fellow Muslims and Christians have if they feel they should defend themselves against Islamic terrorism. Like GhostHacked you try smeer any Jew that disagrees with you as a bad Jew not just a bad Zionist. Your words are on the forum in past responses for all to read who you challenge and why and how you describe the people you challenge. You have a problem with a Jew not knowing his place, and that place is the place of a dhimmi, a second class infidel inferior to a Muslim and not capable of owning land let alone having any legal rights the same as a Muslim let alone a nation. You are a bigot because you condone and support people like Ghost who take an example of a questionable business and use that issue to create a title calling all Israelis blod thirsty i.e., accusing all Israelis of enjoying war, fighting terrorists. GhostHacked is a passive aggressive bigot who when caught engaging in misrepresentations by parsing parts of an article to misrepresent them in a false quote, then once he's exposed by me spends the next 10 or so responses posing himself as a victim. He shows precisely because I am a Jew calling him an anti-Semite for what he did, he is an anti-Semite. Its the very notion of me being a Jew he attacked in his response by portraying me as a bad Jew. You come on this thread which is about anti Semitism to cheer on his smeer of Israelis. The accusation of Israelis being blood thirsty is a nasty, anti semitic attack at Jews for defending themselves from terrorism designed not just to wipe them out as Israelis but because they are Jews. You have made it clear in your wording in past posts you agree with terrorist tactics against Israel and have rephrased them as defensive reactions or liberation or freedom fighting. You and Ghost claim when an Israeli defends themselves against terrorism it makes them terrorists and blood thirsty. For me that makes anything you two say anti-Semitic hateful and a joke. I consider the source. Your words come from a sewer whose essence is hatred of Jews because you were brought up to believe we can not be equal to Muslims ever and that includes not just having or own nation but any rights on the same level as a Muslim and that is why you embrace Sharia Law precisely because it defines Jews as dhimmi and khafir, inferiors. Save your agenda for someone else. The English sounding name means nothing to me. .You want to get in my face and question my Jewish identity, I do the same with yours only I don't hide what I am. I again state anti-semitism is alive and being used under the pretext of criticizing Israel to justify what it actually is: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10492/anti-semitism-tolerance http://www.newantisemitism.org/ http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/anti-semitism-in-the-21st-century/ http://www.thewhig.com/2015/07/09/rise-of-the-new-anti-semitism

Horse crap. You are fully aware our legal system differentiates minors from adults when it comes to the sentences and treatment we dispense to them in criminal courts and how we deal with them in civil courts precisely because we don't think they have the ability to be responsible for their actions. You are well aware of that. You are also quite aware that biological age is not the only factor in determining someone's sense of maturity and responsibility and there are thousands of psychology books on how to raise children to become responsible. Go play that game of idiocy or ignorance with someone else. If you don't want to respond to me, don't, but don't feign ignorance with what I say, we already have other jack asses doing that shtick on this forum and it only belittles them and you...

I do note as some to a constant attempt to hijack this thread to avoid the actual topic and avoid having to discuss the question as to whether islamophobia is used as a pretext or shield to shut down legitimate criticism of Islamic religious values. So with that in mind I refer to the following wording before I go further: "The vast amount of what is called "Islamophobia," however, is not that at all. Fair criticism is not phobic; responses to Islamic terrorism are reasonable reactions to violence just as we react against all other forms of terrorism. If you read Muslim or pro-Muslim accounts of Islamophobia, they find fault with just about everything that implies a negative view of something Islamic, whether texts, history, or customary practices. Curiously, the same people who complain about Islamophobia seem never to complain about Muslim anti-Semitism or hatred for homosexuals or other violations of human rights. In that sense, many have constructed a hate crime that only exists sporadically, within small groups like the UK's fading English Defense League or in comment pages remarks by individuals, few of whom seem well- educated or polite. The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), for instance, has a website called Islamophobia.org, but the offenses do not seem nearly as ubiquitous or as hateful as Muslims claim, and often seem to have occurred as a reaction to some kind of "Infidelophobia." Based on news reports of Muslims murdering other Muslims and killing Christians, there is, ironically, probably more Islamophobia among Muslims toward each other than there is from Westerners toward Muslims. There is also probably more "Infidelophobia" by Muslims toward non-Muslims than by non-Muslims toward Muslims." source:https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6327/islamophobia-fact-fiction The above article is a response to the person who coined the phrase "islamophobia", Edward Said.

cite:http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/672377/jewish/Teaching-Kids-Not-to-Argue.htm Remember: your goal is to teach your child how to be a pleasant person, not how to get what he wants. To this end, you can teach him the "I Don't Argue With You" Rule. It works like this: Your child makes a request You answer "yes" and that ends the conversation. Or, you answer "no" offering just a brief reason. End of Round One. Your child asks again. You say, "let me think about this" (for as long as you need to, considering the issue. Make sure you are comfortable with the answer you choose). Then you change your mind if you wish to (this is the ONLY place in the conversation that you can do this) and you now say "yes." Or, you reiterate, "No." You have the option of adding the phrase, "And that's the end of the conversation." End of Round Two and End of Your Part of the Conversation. Start doing something else. Your child continues to make new, interesting points building his argument for his side. Each sentence is a new Round. He follows you around, dramatically pleading his case. You do not respond to him. If this routine happens every time your child makes a request, he or she will soon learn that you will give the matter serious attention and thought, come up with an answer, reflect upon it if necessary and THAT's IT. The child will learn that there is no point in harassing you further because it won't make any difference at all."

The above is an example of the phenomena known as the "Downing Effect". http://www.drtomascp.com/uploads/PersonalityIntelligence_I"JSA_2005.pdf "There’s a description of a phenomenon that’s out there known as the Downing Effect which states that the lower a person’s IQ is, the more likely they are to think they have a higher IQ than average. As an example, someone with a 90 IQ might think they have a 120 IQ or someone with a 100 IQ might think they have a 140 IQ. " Its also described as the Dunning-Kruger Effect. "...readable academic article I’ve encountered1, which empirically shows how stupid people overestimate their own abilities and smart people underestimate their own abilities. This has been named the Dunning-Kruger Effect, after the authors, though I prefer to call it the Idiot-Genius Confidence Reversal,2 because it results in idiots having more confidence than warranted and geniuses having less. In their experiments, Dunning and Kruger showed how this disconnect between perception and reality manifests across a wide range of areas, including humor3, logical reasoning, and grammar." source:https://maoryc.com/2015/12/23/biweekly-bias-the-idiot-genius-confidence-reversal/

cite: http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/672377/jewish/Teaching-Kids-Not-to-Argue.htm "Remember: your goal is to teach your child how to be a pleasant person, not how to get what he wants. To this end, you can teach him the "I Don't Argue With You" Rule. It works like this: Your child makes a request You answer "yes" and that ends the conversation. Or, you answer "no" offering just a brief reason. End of Round One. Your child asks again. You say, "let me think about this" (for as long as you need to, considering the issue. Make sure you are comfortable with the answer you choose). Then you change your mind if you wish to (this is the ONLY place in the conversation that you can do this) and you now say "yes." Or, you reiterate, "No." You have the option of adding the phrase, "And that's the end of the conversation." End of Round Two and End of Your Part of the Conversation. Start doing something else. Your child continues to make new, interesting points building his argument for his side. Each sentence is a new Round. He follows you around, dramatically pleading his case. You do not respond to him.

cite: http://www.chabad.org/blogs/blog_cdo/aid/672377/jewish/Teaching-Kids-Not-to-Argue.htm "Remember: your goal is to teach your child how to be a pleasant person, not how to get what he wants. To this end, you can teach him the "I Don't Argue With You" Rule. It works like this: Your child makes a request You answer "yes" and that ends the conversation. Or, you answer "no" offering just a brief reason. End of Round One. Your child asks again. You say, "let me think about this" (for as long as you need to, considering the issue. Make sure you are comfortable with the answer you choose). Then you change your mind if you wish to (this is the ONLY place in the conversation that you can do this) and you now say "yes." Or, you reiterate, "No." You have the option of adding the phrase, "And that's the end of the conversation." End of Round Two and End of Your Part of the Conversation. Start doing something else. Your child continues to make new, interesting points building his argument for his side. Each sentence is a new Round. He follows you around, dramatically pleading his case. You do not respond to him. If this routine happens every time your child makes a request, he or she will soon learn that you will give the matter serious attention and thought, come up with an answer, reflect upon it if necessary and THAT's IT. The child will learn that there is no point in harassing you further because it won't make any difference at all." Your words, " Look, I'm sorry if it disturbs you that Jews 'lost the victim race' " reflect your ignorant hateful words towards Jews and your own ignorant framing of hate actions as something to measure in a pissing contest to suggest one form of hatred should take more priority over others. Your ignorance speaks loudly. Listen up, hard as it is for you to let go of the anti semitic concept, we Jews are not a race. Save it for your other audience but thanks for showing what's underneath the posing as a liberal-a miserable bigot. Here are the 2016 statistics you know exist but won't produce showing you are a liar: https://torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/2016hatecrimereport.pdf Here is the pathetic agenda you engage in: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/08/05/4514098.htm

The Vikings probably were the first Europeans who came to the East coast and so? Its also believed South pacific Islanders by sea came to South America and people from the Mongolian plains crossed the ice from Russia to Alaska. So? Populations came to North and South America and evolved. Then thousands of years later, Europeans in the name of Jesus Christ came upon these lands declaring them for Christ and their Kings and Queens who they believe personified the beliefs of Christ. The clash of civilizations is now recorded. So? I totally disagree with Jacee on many threads but on this one I must defend her position as it is legally sound. In law there is no concept of losers and winners. The law is in theory blind to such concepts and is supposed to see parties as equals and do a balancing act so to speak and provide remedies to equal the imbalances when they arise. The Supreme Court of Canada uses a rule of law that does not define aboriginals or non aboriginals as winners or losers, just two equal conflicted components. The Manga Carta act signed by King John with aboriginal leaders is the basis of all treaties our laws are based on when interacting with the aboriginal nations. The aboriginal nations are defined as a nation of nations, equal and running parallel in equal coexistence with our non aboriginal federal government. Our non aboriginal government broke treaties we signed with aboriginals. They don't in law get to break treaties because they are winners and aboriginals are losers. The law doesn't define the issues or solutions to remedying the issues in conflict that way. Say what you want aboriginals have not engaged in terrorism when we violated and broke the agreements we made with them. They have waited us out waiting for us to evolve to a point where we get to their method of conflict resolution that sees the planet and where we live as something we share not own. I think what pisses so many people off is that in this supposed power struggle or conflict, the concept that aboriginals may be more highly evolved than we non aboriginals in terms of how they perceive the universe let alone our place on the planet is something they are not yet ready for. Thus we prefer to think of aboriginals as losers, drunks, lazy, etc. The epidemic of suicides in aboriginal lands in Canada, the alcoholism, the poverty, its a complex form of behaviour with many causes, some that begin and end with each aboriginal's decision making processes but some so heavily imposed on them by environmental limitation as to make it difficult to overcome. Being angry at aboriginals for asking for their rights to be honoured and their way of life to be respected which is at the pith and substance of these legal conflicts causes a lot of backlash with non aboriginals feeling if they do that it gives aboriginals an unfair advantage. The fact is non aboriginals approach land issues from the perspective of someone owns the land to the exclusivity of others. Aboriginals approach the very same issue with the concept that no one owns land, land is a collective shared concept. Our conflicts can actually be summarized as simply as this-when the Europeans came, they put up fences. Aboriginals looked at them and said why would you do that? That difference is still and the pith and substance of every legal issue we remain confllicted about. I am not hear to romanticize aboriginals or demonize non aboriginals, just to say on this one Jacee's description of the legal process is accurate and we still have a long way to go in resolving conflicts with the native collective of nations. Yes their collective of nations faces internal challenges of corruption, suicide, alcoholism. Yes. Our non aboriginal governments also face the same challenges. I personally have seen some very bad stomach churning situations in the court system with native peoples-I don't romanticize sniffing glue, lighting children on fire, beating women senseless in a drunken rage. I don't though take sides and say it makes all aboriginals lost or losers. How can I? I've seen the same crap with my people if I call them that. Its all relative. I tell you what. I don't myself find Trudeau capable of doing anything but simplistic lip service and feel good photo ops with aboriginals. I think where he really lost their respect was going into a teepee on capital hill during July 1 celebrations thinking it made him look tolerant and hip. The first thing he did when he came out was to brag how he was the first PM to do that. To me it was a monumental indication of everything wrong with Trudeau let alone our approach to our issues with native peoples. All Trudeau could do is talk about himself and use natives to make himself look better, Maybe in our dialogue with natives we need to stop doing that and talk in collective terms rather than how it relates to us as individuals.

Your comment is illogical. None of us have absolute freedom. The very definition of life within our physical bodies and with other life forms inherently necessitates compromise or limits to our freedoms. Each action, each decision, each breath you take can impact negatively on someone else and therefore necessarily requires if you wish to be civilized to learn to repress certain components of your freedom meaning you demonstrate in your very breath you take you have a sliding scale of freedoms in your actions. Freedom is directly relevant to the environment you live in and what connections and resources available you have in that environment. You have turn the concept to a simplistic, rigid, inflexible black and white either or postulation with the two segregated and diametrically opposed values because ironically it projects outwards your bigoted thought processes which use rigid stereotypical terms of black or white which I can only assume save you the bother of having to decipher the never ending variations between the two extreme definitions you have. Whether that is intellectual laziness, a learning disability, lack of intelligence, or extremist bigoted thinking I leave to you. I just find it illogical or in layman's terms, insipid. I would contend in the real world there is a sliding scale of tolerance and freedoms that constantly adjusts depending on the situations we find ourselves in. It' s a dynamic process, i.e, its never rigid, it moves and mutates in form as its discussed and takes shape in expression depending as to how its measured and what its measured in relation to. For example when it comes to Revenue Canada telling me what tax I must pay I have little if any freedom. When it comes to exercising my rights under the Charter to freedom , I have much more freedom than citizens do in Iran Saudi Arabia, Russia, China or evidently in any discussion with you on Islamophobia. What you perceive as freedom could be another person's perception of oppression. You don't get to declare how the universe unfolded and what is and is not freedom of anything let alone freedom of religion for others. The world does not end or begin with your definitions,. Ironically the reason religions were started were to try remind humans that as individuals or as a collective we didn't create the universe so we don't get to dictate its rules. We are just a component in a greater scheme that interacts and is dependent on other forms of life as they are on us. We can learn to share and underdstand everything we do is a constant exercise in trying to find balance within a greater whole in a positive way or remain imbalanced in a negative way. I doubt you can understand a thing I said but I tried. Here let me put it in the simplest form possible-Jacee you are trying to hold Jello by placing it in your hand and holding tight. You need to find another way and please don't ask Hot Enough for help. He thinks the point at which steel melts is a solid concept.

Here this might help. http://candeobehaviorchange.com/3-keys-to-breaking-free-from-masturbation-addiction/

You can't find the stats saying Muslims were targets of hatred more than Jews Jacee? That is crap. They don't exist. Your claiming you can't find them speaks loudly as to your credibility. So be it.

I note you stated this and a follow up to another poster who pointed out you were wrong. You said in follow up to the other poster the latest statistics showed the above. You then did not provide the statistics. With due respect Jacee you can't because they don't exist. I actually discussed this in the anti-semitism thread. Here for readers to see for themselves: http://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/jews-single-most-targeted-group-toronto-hate-crimes That said I don't like you or anyone turning hatred into a pissing contest as to who gets pissed on the most as if that justifies singling out certain hate over other hate. Hate is wrong, period. I believe the vital point the other poster was making and I have made is that when we discuss hatred, singling out one form of it as if its more important than other forms of hatred is wrong. As Jew I often see anti semites trivialize the holocaust by taking the word and applying it to other forms of massacre and hatred and saying its no different and why do Jews make a big deal about it. We teach the holocaust, that is to say we Jews with specific reference to righteous gentiles, and gentiles who died like Jehova's witnesses and &th Day Adventists and certain Christian democrats etc. We never say our pain is worse. We don't. We want to have people understand each of these events of hatred is unique and when we teach it we don't compare it to other slaughters as if they compete but as companion pieces. In the case of hate against Muslims, I think Trudeau and the Muslim MP pandered to Muslims and were dead wrong to single out Islamophobia the way they did. They lost respect from Muslims for doing that not just non Muslims. Muslims who are victims of crime have been represented and defended by B'nai B'rith precisely because it is hatred. Those Muslims did not claim to be more pained than Jews-they didn't even ask for our help but they felt good when we provided it. Hatred is hatred. No form of hatred is worse than another. I believe that was Dialamah's point about rape and it got lost in translation. I know her well enough to know she thinks all hatred is equally as bad and meant rape is rape, its a crime men of all cultures and religions engage in. We all agree on that. For this thread we are debating whether challenging specific Muslim values is hatred or legitimate criticism. Any criticism of Islam may hurt Muslims but it is a necessary part of democracy-challenging all extremist religious values. Someone tells me fundamentalist Orthodox Judaism is antiquated I don't consider that anti-Semitic. Why would I? It is. Christians often say that about the Amish or other sects, If its done with respect its part of discussion. With the exception of Taxme I don't think anyone else on this thread is being intentionally hateful with this issue although it can come across that way. Its a tough topic to discuss. So is anti-Semitism or anti-Christian discrimination or homophobia or sexism, etc.

Sorry I just got to this. What media only singles out Muslim domestic violence and no other domestic violence? I think with due respect that may be your subjective impression.

Religion is the leading cause of loss of vision not glaucoma or diabetes..

Well throw mine in too of you mean its male centric. As the "world" it might be better off without humans who create these religions as a basic primal behaviour. Trying to tell humans to cease being religious is liking telling them not to fart, especially male humans. Its an inevitable consequence of how we digest things.

That sounds suddenly tough on terrorism but its not consistent with your other opinions stated on the forum. I personally do not think or a minute you would get rid of anyone you disagree with, even terrorists. Of course you'd leave that for others. Unfortunately those others, i.e., police, soldiers then get challenged by the people just like you who delegated that job. I say that with no disrespect at all. I mean it literally and psychologically because I think that is what we all do with our police and soldiers, not just you. I think your comments reflect most rational peoples' feelings on the matter including mine so I am criticizing myself exactly as I do you for the very same reasons. I am talking rhetorically not just at you. I believe our allegedly moral righteous standards are conflicted because after delegating the augthority tokill on our behalf we then back-track and try put all conditions on the procedures for killing that are unrealistic and reflect our inability to deal with the actual thing required to kill someone. I think our second guessing soldier and police with unrealistic procedures in effect provides power and advantage to terrorists by holding soldiers and police to a different standard of behaviour. I think the standard we hold police and soldiers to when dealing with the task of taking out terrorists is unrealistic and reflects are guilt and doubt about killing. I believe most rational people even when they rationalize killing regret what they have rationalized and so after the fact back-track and project on police and soldiers their own self doubts and misgivings about authority. I would argue soldiers and police with ptsd in effect are carrying a baggage of emotion placed upon them by people like you and me for having to do what they did to protect us. So my perspective is to worry about the police and soldiers and the toll is taking on them, not terrorists. My perspective is to worry about the toll terrorism is taking on innocent civilians. I think far too much emphasis is placed on the feelings and needs of terrorists on this board to rationalize for the moral impotence of the people who feel guilty about the fact that terrorists are just that and need to be taken out before they kill. In the heat of the moment with a split second on the line, no moral righteousness standard is going to be followed-you send a soldier or police officer in the line of fire, they do what they hve to do in the moment to go home that night, period. In the heat of battle there is no moral code, there just is the moment, live or die, The reaction to that reality is reflex. You hope your training engages the reflex that keeps you alive. Good men, trained properly, still freeze up and die in the heat of the moment. I worry about unrealistic expectations from society that flow into the chain of command and are reflected in unrealistic orders. I think its easy to talk the talk but to put into action that "getttng rid of" exercise is not trivial no be a throw in concession in a debate to make liberalism sound tough. Its not. Its easy to be morally righteous and tolerant and talk in theory. It is in the moment when face with kill or be killed the reality takes over from the theory and with due respect none of us on the forum are in that moment and have the perspective that comes from that moment.-maybe Army Guy but even he does not claim that. No soldier will. They don't claim to be able to discuss it. Its a private feeling if they have gone through it, they won't discuss with people who have not and get hints of it in the eyes of the soldiers who have returned with unresolved issues but I know better then to enter into their nightmares or thoughts. Its their business. It is their world. The best we can due is respect its need to private until those ultimate witnesses speak about it. I think we spend too much time listening to terrorists and not any time with soldiers after their return.

its absurd to argue that since Christian societies were violent or are violent one can draw moral equivalence with Muslm societies to argue Muslim fundamentalist terrorism and Muslim violence is no worse. Its an argument liberals like to make to condone things that are wrong-point out the people who challenge the wrong are just as evil. You and I already know and have stated repeatedly on this forum any religious extremism is dangerous and at this point in time, today, now, is fueling Muslim terrorism. Trying to white wash the word Muslim out of the fuel that inspires Muslim terrorism by arguing Christian fundamentalism is as bad as Muslim fundamentalism does not justify or white wash the word Muslim religion out of the fuel that feeds the fire.. This politically correct liberal horse crap would have you believe none of us can challenge anything let lone Muslims or Muslim extremism because we are inherently evil. Oh phack that recipe for moral impotence and passive aggressive liberal feigned tolerance. . Its a pile of crap. This is not about claiming to be better-its about challenging extremist religious a-holes who at the moment are predominantly Muslim in belief and using that belief to fuel their violence. If they are Christians or Jews or whatever I know damn well you apply the same standard -that standard for me is if someone is a Muslim extremist terrorist they need a bullet between the eyes.just as if they were a terrorist in the name of Jews or Christians. Y'all ask me the stink of terrorism is as consistent as the stink of a liberal feigned tolerance and moral righteousness when it comes to dealoing with terrorism. Either way the windows have to be opened and the fan turned on.

So using your reasoning since domestic violence is not reported sufficiently in your mind, covering it up further using a race card argument is going to help the issue. O.k. That was logical.