Peter F

Defend against "roving USN fleets"........in the Arctic..... You have heard of global warming and the disappearing Arctic ice sheet? Isn't that the whole point of this need for Canadian naval and air presence in the Arctic to stop the Russian and Danes from seizing our arctic sovereignty ? If the russians are capable of sending naval and air units to seize Canadian arctic oil fields, is not the USN capable of carrier operations in Northern waters?

Of course they do, why? So when the Ruski's decide to strategically bomb North America (Who knew that the Nuc Umbrella has been rendered obsolete by Ruski's having bombers?) escorted by in-flight refuelled fighters, The USAF will intercept them with in-flight refuelled fighters. The fact that the russians base aircraft in the Russian north does not constitute a threat.

The point of Russian fighters being based in the russian north is not to attack us but to defend against roving USN fleets interfering with their up and coming alternative to the Panama canal: the North East Passage.

so neither us nor the USofA use inflight refuelling for fighters?

only a threat if we intend to attack Russia. Whats the range of these newly rebased fighters in Russian artic airbases?

...and that is because the USofA has reneged on the safe third country agreement. Through its deport everyone and their dog policy it is no longer a safe third country. Canada's policy hasn't changed at all, only the USofA's has.

He makes that sound like a bad thing.

Would you call that a Canadian value?

Argus didn't say that, of course. His linked article said that. All I can say is go ahead and fear what MP Iqra Khalid might be thinking. Perhaps it would be intelligent to actually ask Iqra Khalid what he means. Perhaps its more fun to not ask and fire up all the fear mongering non-SJW's.

Back in the day 'no' could mean 'yes' depending on circumstance. edit: What I mean to say is: 'No' was testable

Oh In my pubescent days I have provided attentions where it wasn't welcome.

It is highly unusual for woman in Canada to face groping and propositioning on the street from strangers. Such behavior is illegal and the authorities would respond immediately. That is a vast difference from many, if not most Muslim countries. So woman in Canada aren't being groped because it is illegal to grope. The difference between here and there is that there is a law here forbidding such practice. If there was no such law would the groping rates be the same here as there?

No, the Lords, for the most part, didn't want commoners having any recognized power at all. There was more than politics involved. There was a reason that the house of commons didn't exist prior to 1270something: The common folk did not have the blessings of God that the nobility obviously had. Nobles had power because, obviously, God wanted them to have power. Commoners didn't have power because thats the way God arranged things. de Montfort's summoning of commoners to parliament was an affront to the way things were arranged by God. So they refused to sit with commoners and debate stuff. The Lords of the Land truly felt that to do so would be against the natural order of things. No doubt, they also believed that with righteousness on their cause (refusal to meet with commoners) would also have the useful result of de Montfort having to compromise with the Nobles. But de Montfort bamboozled them by having the commons meet separately , thus taking the wind out of the Noblilities sails. It must have been a pain for de Montfort now having to deal with two houses instead of one, but thats the price of maintaining ones head I suppose. This attitude of the powerful being powerful because it pleased God to have them, not others, be powerful and so granting them power was/is common throughout the world. This attitude is still regularly heard in our enlightened times. People are not equal; some have more merit than others, therefore the meritorious should rule. Same shit different diety. On the other hand, food was plentiful; populations growing; labour costs falling; towns growing in size and, most important, money accumulating in some commoners purses. The rise of the merchant class , with money available for loans to nobles to fund thier wars meant that the day would come when the commons would have to have their demands listened too also. de Montfort, with the nobility drifting away from him, needed cash. and the merchants and towns had cash. Also lets not forget that when we speak of the commons we do not mean the common folk. Serfs and peasants weren't included in the commons, nor would they be for a few hundred years yet. Exceptions for a few city-states. Almost all of them also had separate houses with Nobility in one and the wealthy non-nobles in the other.

I agree with you there.

I certainly acknowllege that people can make unfair demands. But that does not mean you and I should encourage unfairness.

I think the very fact that no one ever heard of the victims speaks volumes. They weren't criminals, terrorists, rapists, or anything other than peaceful folk carrying on with their lives day to day. I think the mere fact that simple muslims - and there is lots of them - have never come to your attention in any way speaks a fuck-ton about what they think and believe. They don't have nothing to prove to anyone by the simple fact that they arn't in the news. The ones that do make the news do not, in any way that I can imagine, make demands that others prove something to you or army guy or anyone else, justified.

Oh I have no problem with Muslims announcing they abhor this or abhor that or for that matter anyone abhorring things. I think there is a perception in this land from some folks that Muslims need to prove something for some reason. I have great doubt that announcements of disgust with this action or that will effect in any way the behaviour of bad apples. We have seen in these very forums ourselves that no matter what good acts or words a muslim may carry out, others will only consider such things acts of deceit to cover up their supposed true purpose. To these bad apple's all the good deed of the world mean nothing.

I disagree. They do not need to be leaders at all nor is there a need to show other Canadians where they stand. You are making a demand of them and a lesser demand of non-muslims.

I believe in 1260-something, Simon de Montfort (Earl of somewhere) led a rebellion against king Henry II. Eventually the King and his family were captured. Simon de Montfort had the backing of most of the Nobles during this rebelion but once the King was captured many nobles became very suspicious of Simon de Montfort and started to support the King. However, the King being still a prisoner, Siimon de Montfort - without the Royal authority of the King, but in the name of the Council to the King (i.e. those who held the King captive) Summoned the Parliament. This summoning of parliament included the usual nobility but for the very first time also ordered/invited Burghers and Mayors and ordered the Sheriffs to also send two Knights from each county. The idea being that Simon de Montfort felt he needed some support from somewhere other than the Nobility which appeared to be deserting him. This Parliament actually did take place but of course the Nobility refused to debate with commoners ( in a move to undermine de Montfort support and also for the usual Nobility elitism that there is no way god iintended commoners to discuss management issues with their mighty selves) . That didn't seem to work as the Nobles were in no position to actually throw de Montfort out. So a Commons was formed for the non-nobles to also debate, separately, issues. Thus the House of Commons was formed. Again 1260-something. I believe that Edward the First formalized the concept and was the first actual King to summon a parliament with the commons and lords ... 1274? An interesting thing is that in France around the same time, the French king himself started to pander support of the common folk (meaning town officials and lesser/former nobility) in order to increase his power to withstand the Nobility of the land. Sheriffs and Judges were dispatched throughout the land to take care of / speak for the Kings interest in all sorts of things that would normally have been of only local importance. The common folks turned to these local Royal Authority functionaries to inhibit the excesses of the Nobility and the Kings officials gladly helped them out. Thus the commoners reinforced the power of the King as something to their own benefit. Eventually giving rise to the French absolute monarchy. Feudal ages are a wonderful period to read about.

Thank you for that thoughtful post. I don't recall having heard the term 'rage killing' in that context before and I find it a very apt description of these loner attacks. I think you are right to differentiate between rage killings and terrorism.

Absolutely.

Again - What threat to the relationship? He tweeted that if the USofA is going to turn you away you can come to Canada! How is that an insult or a threat? Was it perhaps that Trump was insulted/angered that Trudeau drew some attention to his recent EO? The one that he televised for all to see? I doubt it.

and Trudeau signs on to whatever he can get we know the word 'spineless sell-out' will never cross your lips.

well they certainly could and, as bcsapper points out, Have called it terrorism. But in this case, I do not see the point. Murder charges are going to put him away as good as anything. Now, if there was more than him planning and plotting away then certainly a Terrorism charge would be appropriate to him and whatever compatriots he had. But, it seems this was a lone wolf thing. Murder charges will do just fine.

So this isn't really criticism of Islam is it? What you are saying is that Muslims are at war with us. Effin war! Muslims in Canada - even this praying at a mosque in Quebec city - are trying to kill or convert US, and we are trying to do the same to them! This is the demonization that Dalilamah was talking about earlier.