Shwa

Nope. I already provided you with an answer to your question right from the get-go, including radical Muslims. Others have clearly done this also. Now it is deteriorated to a point where the only thing less to discuss is your over-emotionalized fear of Muslims. Why do you fear them where there really isn't any reason to? Were you bullied in high school?

No, you're missing it. I think I have ransacked your argument fairly easily and it depends on the historicity of your opinion of Mohammad through the use of a semi-fictional holy book. If this is all a workaround for you to admit that your historicity is completely wrong, then I accept your admittance of defeat. The rest of your argument is pure speculation based on unfounded and over-emotionalized fear.

The overwhelming proof given by the sum total of the worldwide population of peaceful Muslim practioners deems that "violence in the name of Allah" is an abberation or certainly not more of a common practice derived from the whole than any other major religious group. See point above. It is a peaceful religion compared to any other. You have no proof that "Mohammad wiped out all the Jews from Saudi Arabia" except from a holy that is likely highly fraught with fiction. The incentive is for you to prove this to be true outside the "history" given in a holy book that is highly fraught with fiction. While you might be able to successfully connect a means of capital punishment to the Koran, there is no direct link between the unproven acts - and therefore simply alleged - of Mohammad. One form of capital punishment is as bad as any other. A clean beheading is likely a relatively humane way for capital punishment if there could be such a thing. There is only a tiny fraction of Muslims committing beheading and this has likely always been the case. For Islamic states, it is a culturally sanctioned form of capital punishment. You have no proof of the historicity of Mohammed or his alleged practices other than a holy book fraught with fiction. As for the "central tenant" of Islam to "suppress" other religions, well, there are Western sources that corrorborate that at certain times Islamic people and Christians & Jews lived peacefully with one another; other times Islamic forces were in defence of their territory; other times Islamic forces was a guise for Imperialism. Since you cannot come up with independent sources for your history your assertion can only be for alleged behavior of Mohammad and a culturally sanctioned practice for capital punishment based on a holy book that is fraught with fiction. The Koran is a holy book fraught with fiction and most intelligent people would not considering such a single source as any indication of a complete and comprehensive records with some other independent sources. The phenomenon of religion has many such holy books created for the purposes of recording hero-myths stories passed among the people. See above. Any holy book coming under scrutiny will reveal that the claim of authority for the content of the book is always highly suspect from a literal point of view. If you are not familiar with the motifs, symbols and memes of a particular religion or culture, your examination of a holy book on a literal basis borders on the absurd. See my point above. The advantage and disadvantage is that their understanding of the holy book is not much better than yours. A mere coincidence of the English language and nothing more.

Not strawman, I am just giving you "the facts." Let me fix it for you:

Radovan Karadzic, the Christian vesus the Muslims in Serbia No Holy Book required for these facts.

Really? Not in my neighbourhood. Heck not even in my city, province or even country. A good number of Muslims obey the law and go about their business like a goodly number of Christians do. Why, they are like that is the US too. If you really want to look at sheer violence and terror, look no further than Europe during the 20th century. All those Christian countries committing unspeakable acts upon one another to the tune of millions upon millions dead.

Well, let's see. If you disagree, don't worry about it. It's all about free speech dontchya know? Facts have nothing to do with it, it's all about free speech. It's disgusting!

Did they invest it on their own? Or does a multimillion dollar public corporation have some sort of, I dunno, "financial advice" group? Or a broker?

"demonize PM Harper?" LOFL! Have you not seen the CPC attack ads on TV "demonizing" Ignatieff? Because, you know, he's not here for you. Prime Minister Harper deserves everything he gets. Michael Ignatieff at least can say AdScam wasn't this Liberal Party, he's the new guy remember? Harper cannot get off the hook so easily.

Really? So what did the City of Toronto Audit Committee recommend to Council since it is their function to report on AG reports? Do you know? The question was asked in the special meeting tonight and since you are so obviously appraised of the whole situation and 'what the tax payer wants' you will know what the answer is. So, what was their recommendation to Councile on the AG's TCHC reporting?

Discuss or troll? I mean, can you even discuss anything?

No, there is always time for reflection, enquiry and direction. Anyone who acts in the public interest without reflection is dangerous. The AG report made it to public, excellent. City Council could have spent a week or two, completed a discovery exercise and then acted with a measure of confidence in what direction is best for TCHC and the citizens of Toronto.

Here is what Minister Oda is not going to do. Although this is curious... Huh?

An apology hasn't been issued yet? It's disgusting!

The problem is, not all the options appeared to be publically available for those councillors to make a rational decision. It is one thing to agree with the Mayor on some decision or another when you have clear evidence before you; and quite another to simply go with the flow because the option of careful thought about an issue isn't available or ignored. The latter I would call a cement head.

So what are you admitting is that you DIDN'T read the Sun article carefully enough? Or you were deliberately trying to mis-lead with your edits? Secondly, all corporations play the stock market, but whomever did - or advised them - should be carefully looked at. Now, was it someone on the actual TCHC board or was it some investment firm giving them advice? Yeah, they should have parked some in bonds.

Cement heads are those members who simply follow the party line without any useful thinking about a matter. Dense. Thick. You see them all over the place. There was one on the news last night using all kinds of strong rhetoric to try and shame people for voting with what their conscience dictated. It was embarassing for the Mayor. Or at least it should have been.

First of all I never called "Ford supporters" cement heads; secondly, I hardly think it is slander, at least not in any form that can be used legally; thirdly, calling someone a cement head is not necessarily an indication that someone is out of ammo in the argument department.

Well I suspect plenty of those smack dab in the middle voted for Ford for his fiscal conservative ideas. Which I don't completely disagree with. But there are many ways to achieve that without being a cement head member of the Ford Nation.

Gawd, Mr. Canada, are you SURE you want to bring that up?

Nope. All it says is that you did some creative editing to make it look like it says what you want it to. Nothing more. Here, let me try, this could be fun. According to the Sun article you cited, it wasn't any problem, they invested the money in the stock market and moved on to something else. Seems all on the up and up to me.

LOL, no. I just wondered about it since they are as much a cultural event as Gay Pride.

If that is the only criteria, the Pride Toronto - since they can't stand on their own - should be clearly eligible. So what's your problem with it again?

So?