bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 "Islamophobia in Canada" is a great title, as this has little to do with Muslims and a lot to do with Canadians, who thought they were so "progressive" compared to...well...you know. Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 I assume you are OK with registering all 18 year old males. Seems a little odd but who am I to question the quaint customs of foreign countries? Between drivers licenses, social security numbers, taxes and all kinds of other government data collection, I would assume they know who almost everyone is anyway. Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) "Islamophobia in Canada" is a great title, as this has little to do with Muslims and a lot to do with Canadians, who thought they were so "progressive" compared to...well...you know. In fairness, the refugee debate in Canada (whether we can vet 25,000 people in 6 weeks) has nothing on you guys (can you manage to accept 10,000 people in the course of a year). And people on MLW are hardly the most progressive people in Canada. Just saying. Edited November 22, 2015 by ReeferMadness Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 ...Between drivers licenses, social security numbers, taxes and all kinds of other government data collection, I would assume they know who almost everyone is anyway. It was a counterpoint to your objection to what a U.S. candidate may or may not have said about registering Muslims. Obviously government(s) can and do register classes of citizens and residents. Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 In fairness, the refugee debate in Canada (whether we can vet 25,000 people in 6 weeks) has nothing on you guys (can you manage to accept 10,000 people in the course of a year). Beats me...there are millions of refugees in other parts of the world who weren't much use to your new PM's political goals. Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 Beats me...there are millions of refugees in other parts of the world who weren't much use to your new PM's political goals. Symbols matter. JT recognized the symbolic importance of taking a stand on this issue. Meanwhile, one of your leading presidential candidates is getting all kinds of accolades for the symbol of proposing a wall to keep out the wrong kind of people. I'm comfortable with that comparison. Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 Symbols matter. JT recognized the symbolic importance of taking a stand on this issue. Never waste a good crisis....Trudeau took advantage of the opportunity like any politician would. These refugees aren't new. Meanwhile, one of your leading presidential candidates is getting all kinds of accolades for the symbol of proposing a wall to keep out the wrong kind of people. I'm comfortable with that comparison. Somebody wanted to build a wall at the northern border too. Symbolism matters. Economics trumps Virtue.
drummindiver Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) So, the protest at the 10:00 mark, would you consider that extreme Islam? I guarantee you she didn't even watch the video. Cause facts. She didn't even read the title. It says "My Hometown Fanatics". not "Islam Fanatics" or whatever she said.The reporter was grouping the English opposers of muslims with being fanatical. Edited November 22, 2015 by drummindiver
drummindiver Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 Your issue with Islam is based on ignorance and bigotry. Your comment below is called a sweeping generalization. It's based on ignorance and not on facts: Yes, daily reports of terror attacks and rape are just sweeping generalizations and bigotry.
drummindiver Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 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???? ..and the English deniers were drinking tea with him right up until the shoe dropped.
Scotty Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 Innocents - non-combatants From the letter: 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)." It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 Why is it morally okay for some people to kill by drone strikes that kills innocent people but not okay to kill innocent people by a suicide vest? We have always accepted that there is a moral difference in deliberately targeting civilians. It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
GostHacked Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 There's 1,500,000,000 muslims in the world. If 1,000,000,000 think extremism is wrong, that leaves 500,000,000 muslim extremists. Almost twice as many extremists as people in the USA. The operative word being 'if'. What you put forth here is pure speculation and generalization.
GostHacked Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 We have always accepted that there is a moral difference in deliberately targeting civilians. How moral is it to take out 20 civilians by accident as collateral damage just to get one suspected terrorist?
Scotty Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 The Bible contains many books from different authors from different times over thousands of years. Some of it is simply an account of history, some of it is allegory, some of it is instruction. NONE of it contains any instruction for followers of Christ to act violently towards others. Quite the opposite, Jesus strictly forbade his followers from doing so and he led by example. Just like Muhammad! Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 How moral is it to take out 20 civilians by accident as collateral damage just to get one suspected terrorist? You haven't demonstrated that this is the case. All the claims about poor intelligence or targeting are from one study from one journalist, and even its claims are parsed. It might say that more than the target were killed, but who were these others? Were they civilians? If a terrorist leader is taken out in a convoy who is likely to be around him but other terrorists? If a terrorist organizer is taken out in a training camp who are likely to be the other casualties? If a terrorist is taken out during a military campaign where he's trying to conquer a town full of infidels so he can slaughter them aren't those around him likely to be military? It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
drummindiver Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 Thank you for posting that - she did a wonderful job of looking fairly at peoples differences. I posted that. Diamelah thought it was just anti muslim propoganda. You're welcome.
drummindiver Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) The operative word being 'if'. What you put forth here is pure speculation and generalization. How many believe in Sharia? I view Sharia as extremism. Sugar coat and deny, it's a misogynist archaic set of tenets meant to isolate, minimize and control minorities and women. And let's not forget non believers. Edited November 22, 2015 by drummindiver
GostHacked Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 How many believe in Sharia? I view Sharia as extremism. Sugar coat and deny, it's a misogynist archaic set of tenets meant to isolate, minimize and control minorities and women. And let's not forget non believers. Well, how many DO believe in Sharia? And yes, Sharia and Wahabism are ideologies that carry and promote extremist views. We still have a problem at home here with misogynism, attitudes towards gays and such. But where is this extremism coming from? ANd let's not forget the people who are most affected by radical Islamic terrorism are .... muslims.
Michael Hardner Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 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)." Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 We have always accepted that there is a moral difference in deliberately targeting civilians. "always", ie. since 1945... Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Guest Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) Say people instead of Muslim. Everywhere you see the word Muslim, replace it with the word people instead. But that would be dishonest. If the people I'm referring to are Muslim, I would be remiss in not saying so. Unless they were like, cheating on their taxes or speeding, or something. Then I would say people. The trick I want to learn, which a lot of people (I can use the word, see), on here seem to be able to do, is to differentiate between Muslims doing bad things and Muslims not doing bad things, and have other people know it. Or so it would seem. Or maybe they don't talk about it at all. Or maybe they just pretend everone thinks the death penalty for various non crimes is a good idea and they just say people. Wait a minute, you don't think that, do you? It's not like we don't do it all the time. We talk about Americans, Israelis, Conservatives, Liberals, the Police, etc, and everone knows we dont mean all of them. Edited November 22, 2015 by bcsapper
GostHacked Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 It's not like we don't do it all the time. We talk about Americans, Israelis, Conservatives, Liberals, the Police, etc, and everyone knows we don't mean all of them. I will argue that many here do think that way. Comments like 'lefties', or 'righties' are generalizations seem to support that.
Guest Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 (edited) Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." This seems like a strange point to be making. In most Christian countries the movement is towards more and greater rights for gay people (not all, I grant you), whereas one can still be killed in some Muslim countries. Percentage wise, I'd rather be a gay Christian. Edited November 22, 2015 by bcsapper
Guest Posted November 22, 2015 Report Posted November 22, 2015 I will argue that many here do think that way. Comments like 'lefties', or 'righties' are generalizations seem to support that. Granted. That seems pretty harmless, in the context used on here. At least, I'm not upset by it, and I don't know if anyone else is, apart from the occasional mod. That doesn't speak to my point though.
Recommended Posts