Scotty

We have always accepted that there is a moral difference in deliberately targeting civilians.

Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings. Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."

I am trying to remember you answering my posts with some sensible rebuttal but all I see is your hate for anyone who disagrees with your opinion.

There is no central unifying authority in Islam. There is no hierarchy. So there are literally many tens of thousands of clerics and hundreds of thousands of Islamic scholars, or men who call themselves that. And 174 of them signed a letter, in English, pleasing to the West. But that is beside the point. All over the Muslim world there are little boys now sitting on the floor, cross-legged, bobbing their heads up and down as they read the specific pages of the Koran they have been taught to read, memorizing them and reciting them aloud over and over again. And these quotations are in the Koran and Hadith, very clearly understandable, and read constantly. You can say some Muslim clerics disagree with them, but you cannot say they are are not there.

You know of my life, do you? In truth, you don't even know what my race or religion are. You are simply expressing your extreme hate for those who disagree with your political beliefs.

Where are the moderates in Saudi Arabia where there is no war?

Are you saying they are making up the quotations from the koran? And someone's opinion. It is not a direct quotation from the koran or the Hadith. I freely admit to being intolerant towards the violently intolerant. And you?

That was my statement, which is an interpretation of the positions I see on many of the universalists on this web site. They seem to believe that every little slight against Muslims here inspires more recruits for ISIS. Also that every time we bomb overseas and hit the wrong people it inspires people to join ISIS. That's simplistic. We don't do that. There are many cultures, races and peoples out there and over here. There's only the one whose adherents seems to keep trying to kill people. Maybe, and maybe when the particularists suggest there is no overriding reason to rush through the act of checking out these potential refugees universalists shouldn't assume they're being cold hearted bigots. Then maybe we should change. Oh wait... we did that already. So maybe they should change.

But soldiers, police, border guards and intelligence services operate at the behest and under the orders of government. Therefore, it is govermment which decides whether the border guards will let people through or stop them, whether soldiers will fight or run away, and what they decide to pay attention to when the intelligence agencies provide them with information. Disagree. He's talking about protecting society from violence and he is a part of that society. Weren't journalists killed in the Charlie Hebdo attack? I have faith in our collective morality and way of life but that doesn't stop bullets. The pen is only mightier than the sword in theory. Charlie Hebdo showed that it doesn't stand up to a Kalashnikov in reality.

Or perhaps it's you who does not understand that religion is a powerful tool for clinging to intolerant beliefs.

Question: Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence? Summary Answer: The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran. Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

I read this in the telegraph this morning and it struck a chord because it seemed to encapsulate a lot of the attitude differences on so many subjects here which most had heretofore put down to Left vs Right. Those on the Left seem primarily concerned with rights of society while those on the Right seem primarily concerned with protection of society. It's particularly useful in the context of the various discussions about security laws, refugees, and military responses though I don't think its limited to them. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12008690/The-real-clash-of-civilisation-is-inthe-Wests-attitude-to-terror.html In the context of a number of discussions here you can see the universalists wringing their hands about any possible threat to the rights (however simple) of a few Muslims to cover their faces, or worrying about government agents scanning their phone call records or the possibility some immigrant will have their citizenship removed if they commit a terrorist act against us. Meanwhile, the particularists are more than willing to infringe on the universality of certain things in particular cases where they see the recipients as undeserving due to their attitudes and behavior. The universalist is desperately concerned with doing anything which might offend people who are Muslim in case they turn on us and blow us up, since they assume that our giving offense is the cause of their anger. The particularist sees violence against our society as coming from external sources unrelated to us, and strongly believes in using force to punish violence and deter future attacks.

Yes, God is great. So what? That has nothing to do with 'hardening hearts' against Syrian refugees. Quit moving the goal posts.

I already said that since they are no longer able to show any victories or conquests in the middle east they need to kill some easy targets in Europe so they can crow about it and recruit more cannon fodder for the fight.

Yes, you want to make it mean ONLY that but it doesn't. Bigotry suggests intolerance for others opinions and beliefs, and I see a lot of intolerance on here for other people's opinions and beliefs.

The irrelevance lies in that she was clearly speaking in general terms and you are clearly speaking in the specific.

Is this a trick question? Because the part of the American government which plans for the future is in the sub-basement of a building in Idaho next to the furnace and wedged in by cleaning supplies. And it's still using MS 3.1 on its computer.

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them. Who on this web site can honestly claim to be free of this? You and others who use the word don't understand it and render it meaningless.

I guess that means everything she said about Muslims is wrong then.

Generalizations never include every single member of a group. How could they possibly? But that doesn't mean what is being said isn't generally true of the group as a whole.

I agree with everything above.

We have. No, but mainstream Islam has some pretty nasty messages, like the ones I posted. First, someone demanded to see where the Koran said that Muslims should treat non-Muslims badly. So I did. Second, please show evidence to support your statement that many of the words in the koran are copied from the bible.

But what is fairer? In your percentages you forget that there is a provincial portion to income taxes which is added to the federal portion and takes taxes for higher income earners over the 50% bracket, over 60% in New Brunswick. If you take that much it discourages people from working harder, and encourages them to hide their money or go black market.

From what I have seen of the UN reports the civilian deaths due to drone strikes in Afghanistan number in the dozens each year. Meanwhile civilian deaths number in the thousands, most due to indiscriminate IED use by the taliban. Wars kill people, and some of them are civilians. But drones kill fewer people than using traditional aerial bombardment because they're slower, and study the target and can be more accurate. That doesn't mean accidents don't happen but as Slate said in its story they are the worst weapon except for all the others.

I don't think we see much doctor shopping in Canada since it's hard to get a family doctor in the first place. I doubt yous ee it much in Europe or the rest of the world either. The US might be the only place for it. Definitely doctors have to be told that giving out unneeded antibiotics is malpractice. As an aside, I am coincidentally on antibiotics right now. I somehow developed an infection in my colon, which, if untreated, would get progressively worse and eat through my intestine walls. I went to ER last week and was told this isn't even all that rare, but not to worry because it was easily treated with antibiotics. One more day and I'm done the required ten days. I've felt fine for several days, though, and could have stopped taking them, but I know better. If you're told to take them for ten days you take the damn pills for ten days. People not doing so are a major problem.