Bob

See exhibit A - Gaza.

Ah, the lie that we've been hearing for decades - that Zionism is predicated on the dispossession of the Arabs who lives in the land when it was under Ottoman rule, then British rule, then eventually after the liberation of the land by the rightful owners - the Jewish people. Even on paper, Zionism doesn't require any non-Jewish persons to be remove. Indeed, early Zionism was highly oblivious to the nature of the Arabs living on the land, just as modern-day leftists are (thinking that these people are peace-loving and inclined to coexistence and mutual recognition). At most, the early Zionists thought that the Arabs would be welcoming to the returning Jewish people. How naive they were, and how naive many still remain. Bear in mind that there was never any such thing as the "Palestinian" people under after the Sid-Day-War. This needs to be understood. Now consider that there was never any independence movement for these Arabs when under Ottoman rule or when under British rule. Only when Jewish "illegal immigration" began and we began to make our intentions known to build a state did the violence really increase from the Arabs/Muslims towards us. The Arabs/Muslims opposed the changing demographics. Now, of course the leftist will now expose their hypocrisy as they label me a racist for opposing the immigration of religious Islamist rats into Canada and the broader wealth, filled with their hatreds, inferior and pathetic "cultures", misogyny, lack of education and diseased older relatives... but when the Arabs talk about their changing demographics during the early Zionist return of the late 19th century, the left nods in understanding that the Arabs were understandably distressed (to the point of engaging in mass murder pogroms against the newly returned Jewish people) at the arrival of mostly secular Jews from Europe (with smaller, more religious Jewish groups coming from Yemen, Morocco, and Tunisia). So long before any "dispossession" took place as a result of what the Arabs/Muslims refer to as "al Naqba", they were already murdering us. So another big lie that many people are being exposed to from the false Arab/Muslim narrative is that Arab/Muslim anti-Semitic terrorism and other mass murders were a response to "dispossession" (which occurred in the aftermath of the War of Independence in 1948-49), when in fact there were pogroms against Jews in places like Hevron in 1929. What were they protesting then? Why did they murder Jews en masse in the 20s and 30s in the pre-Israel British Mandate for Palestine? The answer if obvious. What "occupation" were they fighting against? The truth is that the early Zionists, as well as contemporary leftists who pretend to wear the Zionist label (and of course the usual rat's nest of anti-Semitic leftists and their Arab/Muslim supporters) really believed that these Arabs wanted to live in peace and coexistence, and that they would respond well to a new influx of immigrants who were motivated to work hard and "make the desert bloom". Of course that wasn't true then, and it's not true now. These "Palestinians", and the broader Arab/Muslim collective, do not subscribe to Western values of pluralism, democracy, freedom, liberty, and progress. It's just not who they are - they are "traditionalists" and highly conservative with respect to their own heritage (misogyny, religiosity, violence to solve problems, tribalism, backwardness). The early Zionists, and the contemporary and suicidal "Zionist" left, extended and continue to extend the hand of friendship to the "Palestinians", only to be continually bitten (i.e. mass murder). So in summary, the sweet and innocent Johnny-come-lately to this story, who we know as bud, is perpetuating the lie (that he certainly believes in) that Zionism is premised on the dispossession of another people, when in fact it is the Arabs/Muslims themselves to rejected coexistence and only began their fake "national struggle" after Israel had been reestablished. Moreover, they only began "fighting back" (i.e. mass murder) when they began to see Jewish people returning to Israel via "illegal immigration". And even when the British Mandate for Palestine had been carved up giving about 80% of the land to these Arabs/Muslim (which was known then as "Transjordan", which eventually became yet another fake national identity), that wasn't enough. The subsequent Partition Plan of the remaining 20% of the land wasn't enough, either. To hell with the "Palestinians". Ship them to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, or anywhere else. Repatriate them to live with their Arab/Muslim "brothers and sisters".

It's simple, really. When awareness is increased, behavior can change. If Canadian consumers are faced with a choice at the gas pump with one option labeled "Saudi Oil" and the other labeled "Canadian oil", we'll certainly see a difference in consumption.

And of course, leftist like you lack a sense of humour - my self description is a mockery of the usual rhetoric from those of you who live in looney land and pretend to be offended when the inferiority of Islamic/Arabic societies are clearly described by people like myself. It's "racist" to describe honour killings as barbaric. It's "intolerant" to label religious monarchies are inferior and pathetic. It's "Islamophobic" to insult political Islam and their communist lovers.

Gotcha. So clearly stating that Islamist tyranny is an inferior system to Canadian democracy is now a racist statement. And those that support Islamism cannot be described as verminous rats who subscribe to barbaric and inferior social values, because of course they're entitled to their "opinions", right? If this has what's become of MLW I will instantly leave. I look forward to seeing the administration of this site chime in on this. I'll say it again, Islamic/Arabic societies are inferior societies who largely subscribe to barbaric and sickening values and trends - honour killing, political murders, suppression of all freedoms such as speech, religion, clothing, and thought/politics, engage in misogyny/sexism/gender apartheid, are racist/prejudice to the extreme, and are largely uneducated and closed to progress indeed, they want to regress to the good 'ol days). If that makes me a racist and places me in breach of the forum rules then I repeat - I will instantly leave this forum if I am no longer permitted to tell the truth about Western cultural/social superiority. Of course, you're not that ridiculous enough that you would assert that Islamic-Arabic societies are equal to ours? Or would you?

If I have a choice, I will consume a similar product from Canada before any Muslim-majority country. I am not alone. This reality directly contradicts your false assertion of non-monetary issues playing a role in informing our buying behaviour.

I have explicitly stated that certain cultures and societies are inferior. Is that prohibited? Am I not permitted to state that Western democracy and freedom is superior to Islamism and tyranny? I will instantly leave this forum if I no longer permitted to say such things. I never stated that the people were inferior, but that their societies and values are. Of course, leftists like you can't tell the difference. The nuance is too subtle for you to grasp.

What a surprise, the communist who wants to live off of the backs and sweat of others sees no problems whatsoever to threats against freedom of speech.

Just another example of Islamist vermin abusing the legal systems that we've established in order to affect our political discourse. They may hate us, but I hate them a thousand times back. But of course, it's the "Israel Lobby" we should all fear.

So it was you who lied in a complaint about a post of mine to Charles Anthony. I was quite certain it was you. Hopefully the administration will take heed and take your future complaints with a kilogram of salt. I never derided the entire group of Arabs/Muslims, but qualify my derision for Islamists. I think other posters should be aware that someone like yourself has come here with clear intention of destroying the community with your sickening communist rhetoric and false complaints to the administration of the board about other members who have much more to contribute. I'm confident that the administration of this board will quickly learn about the communist girl who cried wolf a little too often.

I went into greater detail in earlier posts in this thread. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over, so I'm simplifying in the interests of brevity.

Jacee - I pretty much ignored your entire post, but I skimmed over one thing you wrote which I've seen written by others in this forum. You made a criticism against those folks who say something along the lines of, "it's worse in other places so don't look at us". I never, ever advance such an argument. If I actually thought Israel was guilty of mistreating the "Palestinians" (when indeed, we're far too easy with them), I'd say so. In other words, you're attacking something that was never said. It's called a strawman argument.

I grasp the nuances regarding these question far more than virtually every other person on these forums (except for some of the Jewish posters here, perhaps). I'm aware of them. Considering that most people in here are unfamiliar with nuances and unique scenarios that lie outside the norm, and the irrelevance of such nuances and outliers, why get into it? The vast majority of people who self-identify as Jewish people will be recognized as Jewish people by the vast majority of other people who self-identify as Jewish people - hence, not nearly as much dispute or controversy as some folks tend to allege regarding the question: Who is Jewish?

If Judaism is loosely defined, than so is every other ethnic and/or religious identity.

You think Wikipedia has anything to offer me on that question? I was discussing that question with peers long before Wikipedia came around. Jewish identity is not loosely defined, it's just been obfuscated by many people and many groups for political purposes (primarily our enemies have sought to create such confusion for anti-Israel/anti-Semitic political purposes).

I'm not redefining fascism, I'm simply explaining its methods (which nobody has disagreed with in here, thank God), and then showing how it has many more parallels with today's left than with today's right. Given that, why is it that fascism is always misleadingly described as a "extreme right-wing ideology"? If it has much more in common with the left-wing, how is placed on the fringe of the right-wing? Academia have lied, and continue to lie, about the political spectrum, as if it's some sort of circular continuum in order to misrepresent the left - which stands for more and more government intervention masquerading as a benefit for the "great good" or for "the people". The fact remains, fascism is about great government control, which puts the ideology clearly on the left-wing of the political spectrum.

What I do know is that it's a ridiculous price to pay for a passport. You can buy much more complex technology for $225 (a used laptop, high-quality speakers, a graphic card, etc), so we're being ripped off. It's just another tsx grab on top of a mountain of tax grabs. And here we are, with a "conservative" government that many Canadians actually describe as "right-wing". Shows how far to the left Canada has fallen...

Not really.

We're speaking in hypotheticals, anyways. Is there or is there not a maximum amount of Muslims you're willing to accept in Canada? You're backtracking, now... where you and several other suicidal leftists openly declared that you're all willing to live in a Canada where 100% of women wear hijabs. It's a question of principle, and I expected you to engage in evasion so as to avoid an truth you're uncomfortable with. I said it before and I'll say it again - if you're really comfortable with an Islamic Canada (which is what 100% of women wearing hijabs would necessarily mean), then you're either lying or you're stupid. I think without proper management Islam will continue to grow in Canada, as will the religiosity of self-described Muslims. Every day we're seeing more and more hijabs, and a greater proportion of the Canadian population is self-identifying as practising/religious Muslims. Canadians, as politically correct and pathetic as we've now become, are afraid to assert our cultural superiority. The consequence? Vulnerability to destruction via importing third-worlders from the garbage cans of the world (i.e. Somalia) who bring with them all of their barbarism, savagery, ignorance, hatreds, and inability to integrate meaningful into our economies while they sit on welfare in subsidized housing projects.

See, it's comments like this that regularly illustrate your inability to comprehend political and social concepts. If I'm Jewish and I'm not religious... am I a contradiction? Or perhaps, I don't even exist? Maybe I'm from some sort of alternate universe?

This should change. Or, they just terrorize the minorities through mass murder campaigns and expulsions. It's a lot easier to have "equality" for the minority on paper if you virtually remove the minority.

Exactly.

No, it's more entertaining to continue to enjoy you wallow in ignorance as you try to describe Israel as some sort of theocracy or "religious state". I'd rather not waste my time trying to inform you, you're more fun just the way you are. Please don't ever change.

I'm not stretching anything. I'm accurately describing what you clearly stated you're comfortable with. Are you or are you not comfortable with a Canada that is composed entirely of Muslims? What's the highest proportion of the Canadian population that you're comfortable with as Muslims? You already stated that you're totally fine with an Ottawa where 100% of women are wearing hijabs. In other words, an Ottawa where all women are religious Muslims is an Ottawa you're cool with.

You know, although I wouldn't draw parallels between the circumstance for Aboriginal/First Nations and the "Palestinians", the truth is the "Palestinians" have much more autonomy/sovereignty/independence than the Aboriginals/First Nations. Although I have little sympathy for the perceived "plight" of the Aboriginals/First Nations in Canada (and the USA), the "Palestinians" probably outperform Aboriginals/First Nations on certain barometers (i.e. higher levels of educational attainment and lower rates of drug addiction/alcoholism). Although, to be fair, outperforming Aboriginals/First Nations isn't really that hard to do. The idea that somehow Canada has the moral high ground on this issue, if you accept the parallels between the situations for Aboriginals/First Nations in Canada and the "Palestinians" in Israel and the territories (and I don't accept that parallel), is quite silly. Israel goes to much greater lengths to accommodate the "Palestinians" than Canada does towards the Aboriginals/First Nations, but of course the circumstances are different.