Rue

Geez if you did that we would have no one to run our governments or get elected. Sorry I could not resist. Oh man what a topic. It aint easy to discuss. I don't really disagree that much with Wes except on how we define the problem we both agree exists. I am going where you and Moonlight are going on this...how do we define quality Canadians if I can use that word? How does anyone make an immigration policy or regulation that attracts or brings in such quality people and what criteria would we use and why?

Get real Wes. Nothing I have said is politically correct or incorrect. You want to interpret it that way because you disagree with it, period. I do notice though now that you mention political correctness you stated and I quote: " 99% of them (terrorist attacks) come from 1.4 of the earth's population rather than say what you meant, Muslims. There are 1.6 billion Muslims, which is estimated to be 23% of the world's population which is where I am assuming you get your 1/4 estimate from. I got that. What I do not get is where you pulled the 99% figure from. Please share. What you also did not explain is what percentage of those 1.6 billion Muslims carried out the terror attacks because to come up with a pattern of how likely a Muslim will commit terror one needs to extrapolate the exact no. of Muslim attacks by Muslims who performed those attacks and then compare their amount to the total amount of all Muslims to then be able to extrapolate a number that predicts the likelihood of any Muslim committing a terror attack. You did not do that. Your assumption also does not properly taken into account the KIND of Muslim that engages in the terror act and who is attacked. You make no distinction between Sunni, Ismaili, Shufi, Ahmedya, Shiite, etc. and just assume all Muslims are the same and you ignore the fact that most Muslim terror attacks are directed at other Muslims not non Muslims. The last time I looked zero Amidyah and Ismaili Muslims had committed any terror attack, so why do you assume because they are Muslim they are more likely to engage in terrorism? That makes no mathematical or logical sense. If Muslims are more likely to be violent people because Muslims are more likely to be terrorists then provide numbers and your method of extrapolation. That is all I have asked and you continue to make up numbers with no source or basis and make conclusions as to patterns of risk with no extrapolation process. That is why I challenge it.. because I argue it makes no logical sense.. and in fact suggest you might want to ask an actuary how to properly extrapolate risk from preceding actions because that is what I am arguing. I am arguing predicting risk is a lot more complex then what you or I might assume and so I challenge you its not based on political correctness but on lack of objective formulization. While we are at it, do you have any figures as to how many Muslim refugees or immigrants in Canada have committed terror attacks in Canada or overseas? Have you correlated their rates to the entire Muslim population of the world to get a proper extrapolation of a Muslim's likelihood to kill non Muslim Canadians? Have you broken those Muslims down into more accurate categories so as not to assume all Muslims are the same, i.e., that Ismailis, Amidyah, Shiite, Sunni, etc. are different? Please....share the numbers. Here is what I have also considered and that is your 99% figure may not necessarily be accurate. Some would argue that since September 11, Islamist groups have conducted about 20% of terrorist attacks worldwide and so terrorist attacks are less likely to be conducted by a Muslim than by a non-Muslim group. (source: http://theconversation.com/looking-at-terror-attacks-per-capita-should-make-us-rethink-beliefs-about-levels-of-risk-and-muslims-78449) I also found one site that says and I quote:: "Fact: There are only about a total estimated 100,000 militant extremist Muslims in the world. That is less than 0.01% of the global Muslim population of 1.7 billion people. “The vast majority of the estimated 85,000 to 106,000 militants fighting with militant jihadist groups around the world are fighting for purely local reasons, for instance, trying to install Sharia law in northern Nigeria or trying to impose Taliban rule on Pakistan and Afghanistan, while only a small number of these militants are focused on attacking the West.” Source: P. Bergen, National Security Analyst and E. Schneider, Research Associate: http://us.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/index.html" and: Fact: Most terror attacks in the Western world (Europe, USA) are committed by non-Muslims, yet terrorist attacks by Muslims receive 449% MORE MEDIA COVERAGE than other attacks from 2011-2015. This is per the findings of an academic study from Georgia State University quoted below: “We examined news coverage from LexisNexis Academic and CNN.com for all terrorist attacks in the United States between 2011 and 2015. Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 449% more coverage than other attacks. Given the disproportionate quantity of news coverage for these attacks, it is no wonder that people are afraid of the Muslim terrorist. More representative media coverage could help to bring public perception of terrorism in line with reality.” Source: Kearns, Erin M. and Betus, Allison and Lemieux, Anthony, Why Do Some Terrorist Attacks Receive More Media Attention Than Others? (March 5, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928138 I also have argued I think your conclusions ignore good Muslims. I think your conclusions ignore moderate Muslims who are against extremism and terrorism and could positively contribute to Canada. I argue your conclusions and generalized negative assumptions about all Muslims wrongfully stereotypes law abiding, good, hard working, anti terrorist, peaceful Muslims. How is that politically correct to say that? What makes you think the only reason I challenge your assumptions are because of political correctness. Lol. I am one of the biggest smell faces on this forum when it comes to correctness. No one who argues as I do has ever stated there are no Muslim terrorists or no Muslim shmucks. I have been the first to say we need to be realistic on how we deal with extremist terrorists. Never have I justified terrorism or shmucks on this forum so stop stereotyping me. You know better and no I do not and have never said you are a violent Muslim hater. I am simply debating the issues. The difference between us is I want to take the time to differentiate good from bad Muslims because its the fair thing to do. I treat people the way I want to be treated. Its that simple. I do not assume the generalizations you do about them precisely because people have done that to me about my Jewish identity and I know how unfair it is. That is all. I am no King of any Jews. I was shot at and spit at and had rocks thrown at me by Muslims, I cleaned the aftermath up after Muslim terrorism and I learned because of that-that when people are shot and die and blow up, as I witnessed , they dead were both Muslim and Jewish and they blew up the exact same way and looked no different once they awere burning flesh. So I will be damned if you ask me to assume the flesh I put in plastic bags should not be properly acknowledged The people in those bags Muslim or Jewish suffered equally from bad Muslims. I also saw bullshit extremist behavior from certain Jews and I never condoned what they did and will not allow anyone to stereotype me as being the same as them either. I have been spit at by both extremist Muslims and Jews because of the uniform I wore I was no King. I dug toilets and cleaned toilets and feet and cleaned roads and pulled worms out of toes. What you see as Muslim or Jewish shit I only see as shit because from my perspective its all it was, shit. I am not arguing all Muslims or for that matter Jews or anyone else is innocent or never had a shit. Give me a break. I know what I cleaned thank you. What I am arguing is not all Muslims and everyone else should be assumed to be full of shit simply because they were born with a propensity to be assholes. I argue if you do that you become no different than terrorists in your reasoning and they have the last laugh because your incorrect assumptions may however unintentional alienate the very people you want to win over to help you fight the terrorists. I argue what you are doing makes it easier for terrorists to recruit the very people we need to form an alliance with to fight the terrorists.

In regards to 1, because I have been in the position where I have witnessed indiscriminate violence and/or been ordered to do things that both made me develop insight there is a fine line between controlled response to contain negative behaviour and indiscriminate violence. In regards to what you feel, I have no interest in pursuing your claims of always being in control of your acts or feelings of violence. What I have learned in life is that people who have been quick to tell me they are under control have more often been in a state of denial as to their true feelings. However I do not claim nor am I interested in pursuing with you, your claims of control. In regards to your third statement it is illogical. The sheer volume of violence world wide as exhibited by humans renders your comment absurd. In regards to your fourth comment you stated in the previous response I responded to and I quote; " I have never worried about my potential to be violent without reason". It is from that statement I inferred you claim to be a man of reasonable violence and capable of expressing reasonable violence. If you were not claiming to be violent and claim never to have been violent or acted violent or feel violent, then I live that claim to you and tell you that you would be the first human I ever heard from who claims he has no violence in him and yes I have a problem with such a contention. Then again maybe you were in Hari Krishna and it worked for you. I leave that for you. Further, I had no questions for you, you in fact raised the question in your previous response which I responded to. I have nothing to question you on. If you were in Hari Krishna or have entered a stage of enlightenment where you have reached a state of non violence I have no need to question it thank you. I didn't before, I do not now. Next, on this thread, you made your position on Muslims clear and I disagree with your position. You made your position clear on this and many other threads as to where you stand on immigration policies, refugee policies and Muslims and I need no clarification of them through questioning and I have challenged them for the reasons I stated. I do not believe any government policy to be effective should be based on fear mongering or assumptions of negative generalization of anyone as an individual or as a member of a social group. I have also previously argued I contend as do others that government policies, initiatives and laws should be based on objective standards and criteria that are fair and balanced. I also stated the fact that there are Muslim terrorists, Muslim anti-semites, does not and should not give you the right let alone presumption to lecture me or any Jew on our history and tell us what we must think of Muslims. When I stated that I spoke for myself. I also explained that nowhere in my religion does it say I should hate or assume an entire people is evil because some or many of them may be. My religion teaches the exact opposite so to tell me what anti-semitism is let alone how I as a Jew should react to Muslims does not make me King of the Jews, it makes me a poster telling you that I challenge your opinions and ask you to NOT assume or presume to tell me as a Jew or speak on behalf of other Jews or Netanyahu as to what they think of Muslims unless they tell you to or you quote from them directly without removing what they said from its actual context.

Your question and then second sentence make it clear your first question was not a question but in fact a statement that when read in conjunction with your second sentence tries to turn what I said into a point of subjective personal ridicule in regards to my previously stated reservations about violence and further that you do not understand what it means to be asked to kill someone and/or be placed in a position as a result of witnessing violence about how difficult it is to control the instant reaction to that violence by becoming violent. Your third sentence makes it clear that you; i-felt the need to pose yourself as reasonably violent; an ii-lack the insight to see the inherent contradiction in that contention. Given the above it also does not surprise me you can't see a co-relation in how negative stereotyping of an entire group of people dehumanizes them and makes it easier to be hateful including violent towards them. Finally since you chose to turn this into a pissing contest, I leave it to others to ask what is more disturbing: 1-someone who worries about how easy it is to be violent and the negative consequences of becoming violent; or 2-someone who has no concerns when he is violent because he doesn't step on ants or earthworms. As for your comment about not going "all Bhuddist" whatever the phack that means you may wish to consider Bhudda stated: "Seeing the similarity to oneself, one should not use violence or have it used." You may also wish to consider the fact that Ted Kennedy was not a Buddhist but did say: "Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits." Edward Kennedy

You have zero proof of that and you ignore the behaviour of Markle. She is a manipulative shallow narcissist who ridiculed the monarchy from the get go. She is disliked because she is a selfish phony. She ridicules the very role of Princess Anne she does not want to do. She wants to brand the monarchy to make money. She is a whore who wants to whore out her monarchy status. She wants to go back to LA and sel out her royal status in Hollywood to make money for her greedy self. She is ugly in spirit and soul. She married a blood clot.These two spoiled brats are not victims just petulant self entitled brats.

You are dead on as to the last sentence. Hey we may have to babysit Harry.

Easy. You sound American.

I loath the same crap. Respect to you... you also have extra reasons as a woman to have concern with fundamentalist women haters. I defer to you and Godess or Dialamah on that.

Yah and you do not read. No where did it say I fear Muslims. Stop shooting off at the mouth and read. I was referring to my own potential to be violent without reason.

I have never said I am king of anyone. Your being an abusive ass in your responses. Cool it. Stop misrepresenting what I said. Provide one statement from Netanyahu who said he hates all Muslims let alone is afraid of them. Now you claim not only to speak for all Jews but Netanyahu. Netanyahu commanded Muslim soldiers.

I get that Teena. I get that more than you think. . I am not telling you to do otherwise. I am saying I do it too just not with all Muslims and not only with Muslims.

Yes it could be. If it is then the face has to be revealed. That is what our law currently says, i.e., driving, entering a secure place, airport. Why is it allowed. I can only tell you the Charter of Rights says it is a religious right and the Charter is interpreted widely. By the way the religion doesn't say it. Its an individual choice. The religion is silent on it. The point is this is another thread referring to concerns about Muslims and how they think and practice their religion. If that is the case it belongs in the religion thread. If you are saying it is related to a concern about how we define admissibility to Canada as an immigrant and/or refugee than to do away with this practice, you would have to not have the Charter of Rights section as to freedom of expression/religion interpreted as it is now. I myself understand your concern. I would not want someone walking around at a swearing in ceremony wearing any face covering myself regardless of their personal beliefs. However how you enunciate that in a law is difficult. There is a not withstanding clause in the Charter that probably push come to shove be used to justify security issues which is why it has never yet been invoked during a security risk situation. Up until now people are asked to show their face privately in security issues. If they are stopped my police driving, they have to show their face. Push came to shove, it has not yet happened, a witness testifying would have to show their face. Other then that while I appreciate your concern I would hope most of us do Muslim or non Muslim as to this issue.

. Thank you. Deference to you.

First off I live in Mississauga so I live in the very scenario you state. Secondly I lived in Israel with the very same scenario and Inhabeen spit on, had rocks thrown at me and seen horrible things. I have learned that religious extremists scream and sputvtyecsamecwzy and blow up the exact same way. I AM NO angel or righteous preacher. I have cleaned back sides. The shit is the same. Also I never claimed to be a patriot. In my world patriotic is a subjective term civilians use. I know soldiers but they do not use that word. Ask them why. I am under the impression they do not use it the same way I do not claim to be religious or righteous. I do claim to be a devotee of the Montreal Canadiens. It ends there.

Your first two comments are contradictory and defective in reasoning. I never claimed you were afraid to lecture me and all,Jews about what we should fear. I in fact asked you not to presume you can lecture me or any Jew about what we should fear. I said it was patronizing. I now say again you claim to tell Jews how we should think and feel. What you in fact do is project your feelings about Muslims on Jews and tell us we must think like you and I again say this Jew and all Jews do not ask or need you to tell us who hates us and how we should respond to them. Canadian soldiers already have and, thank them. In regards to 3, you in fact ridicule my comments and again show you prefer telling people in this case Jews how we should feel rather than ask us how we feel. You are absolute false in your representation that I have ever stated on this forum hatred or terrorism should be appeased. I support Army Guy on his opinion on how to deal with terrorism. Next do not presume to tell me what I feel let alone tell me I constantly live in fear of Muslims. The constant fear of Muslims you refer to is your fear which you then try project on me. I am not you. Stop telling me what I feel and ask. Do not ask me why I am acting. That is an allegation thatvhave lied about what I told you I think and feel. If you now want to call meca liarc and claim I act, then I state to you that you do not have the courtesy to respect my views and feelings and that is no different than what you claim the Muslims you fear do. You make speculative claims about customers and ratios with no objective basis from which to assume any extrapolated pattern of behaviour so I can not respond to them beause I can not,understandv them. You made rhetorical questions that ask me to assume things without any objective basis.That is illogical. Its simplybfear mongering. You ask me to conjure fear based on subjective pandering. Finally and you clearly show you do not understand the phenomena you presume to lecture Jews on...we have been as many times killed with no warning as we have with warning if not more times. You show ignorance not only of how we have been attacked but the motus operandinof terrorists and murderers. In regards to the above comments I speak for myself but I sure as hell know my history far better than you and Judaism does not and has never told my people it is justified to hate. I fact it compels us to do the exact opposite. Even in justified self defense our need to use force is not to be glorified or accepted as a norm. We can not allow that. We must view that as a tragedy that compels us to find a better way. We must always promise,our warriorscwecwill notvabandon other options to try avoid them having to die if it is reasonably possible. That is not appeasement. No one has said condone terror and hatred but some of say do not rest on soldiers or police to always be the only solution. You are so busy telling me how and what to feel or what think you can not hear me. That is no big deal. I do not expect you to understand. If I can get just one person who would otherwise choose to hate and fear to find another way that is all that counts. I learned my values above from Judaism but also gentiles equally, especially soldiers..someone like Army Guy who would defend and die for me. I could never ask him to hate for me. I do not have that right.

Housing issues are not simply a Muslim immigrant or refugee issue. The fact that the issue was used this way was part of the agenda to single out negative characteristics in Muslims to then be connected to an underlying issue as to taking in Muslim immigrants and refugees concerned they may not be good Canadians. No one has the balls to admit that. I do. I can't stand Muslim extremist fundamentalists, terrorists. I just am not sure my perspective as to them is relevant to other Muslims. In regards to other Muslims I probably hate them for the exact same reasons I do all humans including myself. What can I say Dialamah. I showered and scribbed and the blood of the wicked came off but the blood of the innocent will not. People like me think Satan is just the part of us we can't come clean on.

Of course I never said that. I i in fact said ...please do not presume to tell any of us Jews about what anti-semitism is or where it comes from or what we should be afraid of. “Jews survived all the defeats, expulsions, persecutions and pogroms, the centuries in which they were regarded as a pariah people, even the Holocaust itself, because they never gave up the faith that one day they would be free to live as Jews without fear.” — Jonathan Sacks That is why I also politely asked that you please don't use the suffering of my people as a platform from which to rationalize negative beliefs as to all Muslims and/or to justify any anti immigration and anti refugee policy against anyone. All I see is you repeating back what Argus said which I now again argue uses anti-semitism as the latest pretext to incite fear and hatred of Muslimst o then use those fears and hatreds to create a justification to ban Muslims from coming to Canada and to fear the ones in Canada as ticking time bombs. Give me a break. Please do not expect me to believe you and Argus simply want an anti-semite test in the pre-screening interview for all immigrants and refugees. In fact you two and all the other anti-immigrant and anti-refugee speakers have yet explained or offered one objective test to screen undesireables let alone define undesireables. Not one of you has provided any objective basis to show Canada is over-run by Muslim terrorism or any other terrorism linked to refugees. I again ask please do not use the past, present or potential future misery of my people or the existence of anti-semitism or specific terrorist or extremist Muslims or other depraved people as your shield of justification to negatively stereotyping or hate anyone. Here if you can't get it have this 14 year old explain it with these 3 quites:: What is done cannot be undone, but one can prevent it happening again. Those who have courage and faith shall never perish in misery. No one has ever become poor by giving. You lift out of the body for what may be seconds, minutes, hours, I am not sure, but you do and you realize, now hang on, all of this is the material world of physical tense and human bodies and human made negative decisions but it doesn't end there or begin there. That's the best I can explain it. Terrorism is designed to make you fear not just terrorists but innocent people that you lump in as terrorists. Those people you lump in with terrorists can become terrorists because they pick up you claim they are and hate them giving them the impression the terrorists are right, everyone hates them in the West so they may as well be a terrorist. I do not play that game. Yah I had a kid look at me face to face and see a big Jewish Satan. I saw him recoil expecting me to grow larger and suck his eyes out. All I did is pull a worm out of a hole in his foot. I am not sure after that if he thought I was Satan. I didn't ask him. I stuck a tetanus shot in his arm, poured some disinfectant on his hole bandaged it and left as quick as I ran into him so I would not get stoned. No terrorism didn't get me to run from that boy and for all I know he went on to kill Israelis, other Palestinians or maybe he did not and moved to Canada and does stand up comedy or sells drugs. I do not know. I do not fear it. I used to be deathly afraid of myself. Now I have no feelings one way or the other. When you get older your feelings turn to how your prostate or back is doing.

Argus you now show clearly your agenda is to promote fear mongering about Muslims to justify not letting them come to Canada..thank you. It is also interesting to see you mention no one but Muslims when you tell me let alone presume too tell me who I should fear as a Jew. At this point you fear monger. When you have something to discuss other than your fear of Muslims let me know. It is stale. Your using anti semitism to try justify your bigoted assumptions about Muslims is noted. Your use of the tem much of the Muslim world to engage in a negative collective reference of all Muslims is noted as well. Thanks for your concern. Nice to know your fear is logical and done on my behalf.

You in every thread and now in the second sentence.

If the fact that Trump may be asshole is germaine to the decision to kill the general, then necessarily the general being an asshole is equally as germaine. The decision made to take out the general was based on other factors and certainly not simply Trump being an asshole.

You do not specify what you refer to and without any evidence blame HUNDREDS of murders based on an assumption. Your assumption is predicated on the belief that if Iran is ignored nothing bad happens. Your assumption is illogical. It also assumes nothing Iran does justifies a response or challenges to the decisions it makes which is also illogical.

The assassination triggered a missile firing back into Iraq. The tensions were as high as they could get from previous Iranian provocation. Anything else is the direct result of Iranian errors. For the US to be directly the cause it would have had to order the shooting down of the jet ski your contention is incorrect. You are trying to create a cause for the error Iran admitted to on an assumption you can US for increased tension. Even if that were true that would tyen because secondary and therefore indirect cause not a direct one. You also have no proof as to what triggered the decision to shoot down the jet. You simply assume the error could not be caused by anything but fear of the US. Anyone who makes a decision based on being frightened as you assume raises an issue as to their training and competence. Stop trying to reinvent what happened to suit an anti Trump bias. I hate Trump too but it is bs to blame him or anyone else for Iran making a mistake.

Oh hell not righteous or original.... also I know the difference between Trump and POTUS and when they come into legal conflict do you? Thanks though for the concern but back to the issue containing Iran is a task the US takes on thank you for that. Our bearded leader Justin hisses but that is the about it. We also now have secret weapon, a midget Super Minister always in red and ready to toss her hair but no missiles.

I have to concede that. I think most would.

In all fairness his allies have no problem in what he did. The relationship with Putin may also not be as deep as you think.