ReeferMadness

yet.... And that same wonderful presidential candidate is proposing to build a huge wall so the "wrong kind of people" don't get in. Is that a new tradition for y'all?

Isn't it great to see old traditions revived? Of course, in the case of some countries, maybe it's better that some of those traditions remain buried.

Yes.... and one of your leading presidential candidates seems to be in favor of cataloging members of a certain religion. Imagine that. Who was the last guy to do something like that? Adolph somebody????

Wow, this thread was really appropriately titled.

That's really interesting because much the same behavior was reported at Hurricane Katrina refugee centres. Do you think someone was running around converting them people to Muslims which turned them into rapists?

Thank you for posting that - she did a wonderful job of looking fairly at peoples differences.

People who swallow the anti-Islam propaganda should read this. From the bible:

I'm not going to waste my time debating your clearly biased nonsense. Muhammad didn't write the Quran. He dictated to his followers and the Quran was written in bits and pieces and later assembled. There is no way of knowing how accurately that transcription was. Much like the bible. The bible contains scores of instructions from God to kill people, including children. I don't know where the hell you get your information but you clearly need an education. I don't know where you read your religious fairy tales but maybe you should study a little history. Look at the Crusades. How about the Inquisition? Again, I could go on and on - but you've clearly decided on your biases and I won't waste my time.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Where to even start with all the nonsense you spout. 1. Jesus is a figure in both religions. Muslims consider him a prophet while Christians consider him the son of God. 2. According to every source I've read, Muhammad is mentioned just 4 times in the Quran, far fewer than Jesus. 3. The bible is filled with stories of incest, child killing, executions and mass killings. 4. Historically, there have been Christian theocracies that were every bit as vicious and dictatorial as ISIS. I could go on but I'll leave it at that. Reasonable people without biased and bigoted views on the matter would conclude the following: Any belief system has good and bad elements. It's up to the followers to interpret the belief system in a an appropriate manner.

So, you can believe that there is some link between the destruction of Vietnam and portions of Laos and Cambodia in the 1960s &70s (with the attendant deaths of 2 million+ people) and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. There is no evidence for it and as such it is no different from the belief in a supernatural being in the sky who rewards people for living right and punishes them for living wrong. Irrational beliefs can result in bizarre and even dangerous behavior and that's why intelligent people believe it's wise to separate church and state. So, carry on with your irrational, bizarre religious convictions. Oh, is that like the butterfly flapping its wings causing a hurricane?

Which might be relevant if I was comparing ISIS to the KKK. I know it's complicated but try to follow. What I was saying is that asking so-called "moderate Muslims" (normally referred to as "Muslims") to take accountability for extremists who cloak themselves in the cause of Islam is like asking the Christian community to take accountability for the KKK. Intelligent, knowledgeable individuals will recognize that the 1.6 billion Muslims spread across the world represent a very diverse community and that any belief system can be twisted to support all kinds of perverse behavior. Similarly, there are a vast number of different organizations that consider themselves as "Christian" and some will be more motivated to differentiate themselves from the KKK than others.

I got 90% I had no idea that men are required to register for selective service. Seems kind of sexist.

You probably don't even recognize how offensively silly the statement you just made really is. Here - let me show you. The principal invoked here is asking moderate white people to speak up against white supremacists, both for Canadians and white people everywhere. The principal invoked here is asking moderate Christians to speak up against the Ku Klux Klan both for Canadians and Christians everywhere. Now do you see?

There is one other interesting aspect to this story and that is that the Moosejaw Times-Herald tried to bury this video. The only reason we're seeing it is because reporter Mickey Djuric had the integrity and fortitude to resign rather than see it get buried. I think the Times-Herald has some 'splainin' to do.

He certainly said whore. As for the argument that me meant horde, I agree that his tone doesn't sound angry or vicious but that doesn't mean he didn't say whore. He could be the type of person who uses derogatory language casually and just forgot that he was being recorded. In the context of the sentence "he's too important of an MLA to let go down to an NDP ...", the word horde doesn't really fit. To me the key word is "an" because it implies a particular individual out of many. Would you say "an NDP horde"? That would be unnatural because it would imply there are a bunch of NDP hordes and he is going to lose to one of them. If he meant to say horde, he would have said "the NDP horde", not "an NDP horde". The other reason that horde doesn't fit very well is he's saying that he doesn't want an individual candidate to lose to something or someone. It only makes sense for a candidate to lose to another candidate. He can't very well lose to a "horde".

He's such an ass. What? No! You misheard me... I said he had CLASS!!

If you don't think they're going to buy anything, why do you go on and on about this? Obviously, you've made up your mind that only the butterball bomb truck will do. We got that about 300 posts ago.

Your finger slipped and you accidentally put a question mark at the end of your sentence. I fixed it for you. Hold your delusions close - they'll keep you safe from any nagging reality.

So, first of all, nobody voted for ISIS and it's unclear how much support they have. Which makes them occupiers. But that's not the point I was trying to make. Defeating the 30,000 fighters isn't necessarily defeating ISIS and even if you defeat ISIS, you haven't fixed the problem. The problem is that for every one ISIS fighter there are probably 100 or 1,000 or maybe more aggrieved, young people who might be in a position to see ISIS as "standing up to the system" the way that young baby boomers did back in the 60's and 70's. That's partly why Saudi Arabia and Turkey aren't fighting ISIS - they're afraid of their own people.

ISIS isn't Vietnam or Iraq. It's an army of 30,000 occupying a poor area, mostly desert. Turkey, which borders ISIS controlled territory, has an army a million strong (including reservists) with thousands of tanks and a modern air force. So, I'm forced to conclude that Turkey alone could easily roll over ISIS if it chose to do so. And, since Turkey is a country populated predominantly by Sunni Muslims, that wouldn't present the same problem as white Christian westerners occupying Iraq. However, Turkey won't fight ISIS because ISIS is fighting Turkey's enemies, Assad and the Kurds. (the enemy of my enemy...). In fact, Turkey has, officially or otherwise, been supporting ISIS by allowing it to cross its border and buying some of its black market oil. Therein lies the problem. ISIS isn't some random malignancy of Islam or just a bunch of madmen in the desert. It's a manifestation of deep ethnic and political issues whose roots include the following: Ethnic/tribal strife and tensions in the region Countries consisting of multiple ethnic groups arbitrarily created by European colonial powers Deep anti-western sentiment resulting from centuries of invasions, intervention, colonialism and neocolonialism Regional economic malaise resulting in the unemployment or underemployment of large percentages of people, particularly the young The governments of Turkey and Saudi Arabia won't confront ISIS on the battlefield, not because they're afraid of the 30,000 fighters, but because they're afraid of their own people who might sympathize with them. To make things even worse, I saw a story today (I lost the link) that spoke of Israeli and Russian sources discussing using the type of tactics that Russia used in Chechnya and Israel uses against Palestinians. Collective punishment and more indiscriminate attacks. Both of which may temporarily put a lid on things but are guaranteed to fuel the underlying problems. Until and unless the major players in the region (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran) are prepared to get serious about trying to fix the underlying issues, the west and Russia should pack up and leave.

:rolleyes: Should we also expect a thread titled "The Evil History of Capitalism"?

Heavy gunfire and explosions in Paris right now as swat team has somebody cornered in an apartment. Police injured.

Signs that some intelligent thought is buried in all of the military madness. Bombs will not solve anything.

This is pathetic. Putin is making the west look like idiots - and we've made it easy for him. The link I posted yesterday saying that the US knew the oil was going to Turkey was a year old - and nothing was done about it. If ISIS had been starved for funds instead of the "bomb for show" campaign, they could have collapsed long ago and maybe Paris wouldn't have happened. All the right wingers on this forum can look at Harper for his part in this. Canada would have known what was going on and he kept on claiming all we could do was bomb. It's all bullshit and until it's not, we should pull out completely.

Shhhh. Don't take away their excuses.