Islamophobia in Canada

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

If you want to say Islam promotes violence, then you must also say that the West promotes violence. 

Total garbage.

Quote

The US has been at war, somewhere, for all but a few years of its existence.  Canada is not far behind.  Sure, we can tell ourselves we.are.on the side of "good" but the people on the other side of our violence would not agree.

The problem with this desperately defensive view is that virtually no terrorist attackers in North America come from regions of violence. None of the ones in Canada who have committed terrorist acts or attempted to commit terrorist acts were doing so because they came from an area they felt Canada was attacking. None in the US did either. Most of the 911 attackers were Saudis, an area the US has never attacked.  The terrorist couple in California who killed 14 of his colleagues were, respectively, born in the US, and brought to the US from Pakistan. Again, giving no reason for them to attack Americans because of US actions abroad. Nidal Hassan, who gunned down forty people in the Fort Hood massacre, was born in Virginia. Omar Matteen, who shot 50 gay people to death in Orlando, was born in New York.

These are not 'people on the other side of our violence' no matter how frantically you want to defend them and portray us as the guilty party. They are members of a violent cult who picture the world through the lens of religious fanatics. There is them and their cult, and then infidels. And the infidels must be conquered or die.

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

45 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Nope. Islam doesn't promote violence any more than I think Democracy promotes the violence the US and Canada have been involved in.

Maybe you can tell us where democracy talks about how people who believe in other systems should be killed in support of your bizarre belief.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Nope. Islam doesn't promote violence any more than I think Democracy promotes the violence the US and Canada have been involved in.

Democracy simply refers to the concept that the people of a society delegate  representation of their view by people they elect to represent their views. It stops there. Any political ideology at that point expressed by the elected representatives that goes on to be violent in expression is not part of the concept of democracy. Democracy as a concept does not define the delegation of representation as being violent, on the contrary, its to be done peacefully/ If people act in a violent way democratic societies have laws for that which in fat prohibit the violence. intrinsic to a society being democratic is freedom of expression and lack of violence in reaction to difference of opinion.

When a democratic nation engages in a war with another country or in actions to contain terrorism those actions of war or counter-terrorism are implemented by a non democratic entity called a military force. No one claims the military or wars or counter-terrorism is a form of democracy. Its carried about by organizations that don't allow free speech. When emocracies engage in war or use military which are not democratic that does not mean democracy is inherently violent but it does mean if a system of democracy in a country is endangered by another country that is or is not democratic, democracy may become limited in application and/or suspended until the war or counter-terrorism is resolved. It doesn't make the democratic system violent, it makes the need to counter violence to democracy  at times violent.

Democracy is not a religion. It does not define what political views are appropriate or inappropriate, the people do through partisan political policies. Democracy necessarily allows freedom of speech and people to have different ideologies-those differences fall outside democracy when defining them-they become separate political ideologies that may or may not believe in the democratic method of electing representatives.

Islam on the other hand is not democratic. As practiced it is authoritarian and does not allow free thought. Thoughts, values and beliefs are instructed by Mullah or Imam. There's no discussion and challenging of how to interpret Muslim ideology-you are told and you follow. If you don't you are called into question as a non believer. There's no electing of Mullahs or Imams. There's no questioning of their beliefs. There is no code of debate to be used to question the Koran.

In fact Islam is a religion, a theocratic belief that humans can and will dictate to other humans how to conduct themselves and what to believe at all times. Its a control system that uses the Koran as interpreted by Mullahs and Imams as an agent to guarantee and enforce conformity to specific and certain beliefs. That is not what democracy does or claims to do. Democracy only refers to the method of how one chooses their leaders, period. Islam imposes the leaders, then goes on, unlike democracy to then impose a system of beliefs all must conform to.

Islam does not permit free speech and without free speech there is no tolerance and without tolerance, necessarily there is intolerance which is another word for lack of permission to disagree. Once that limitation is imposed and free discussion is prohibited, that discussion goes underground and it necessarily remains repressed growing in its repressed state until eventually it surfaces as all repressed thoughts do. They can only be held inside or repressed so long. The longer those thoughts and feelings re kept inside and build up, the stronger that build up, the stronger the expression is when it necessarily erupts. That eruption is inherently and necessarily violent.

Democracy by allowing debate out in the open through free expression is supposed to prevent a build up of repressed thoughts leading to that violence. If in fact democracy is curtailed not practiced, violence can occur because expression in authoritarian societies that don't allow democracy and freedom of expression are no different than Isla,-they set the conditions for violence to grow and erupt.

Islam has been since its inception violent. Its expressed with violence, war, intolerance and speeches that do not allow difference of opinion and create objects to scornn and hate including non Muslims, gays, women,.  With due respect the religion is inherently violent. Muhammed was a violent man. He encouraged wars, extermination of specified groups and people he hated. To paint him as a peaceful man is nonsensical. He believed in forced and imposed will on those who disagreed with him. Islam is violemt. Its practiced as a code for violence, war and terror and systemic discrimination of non Muslims and Muslims of dark skin as well as Muslim women and Muslim gays.

While it is inaccurate and inherently unfair  to say all Muslims are violent or should be assumed to be violent or can never evolve to be non violent the religion as its expressed mainstream today is violent. The fact is freedom of thought is not going to be permitted for a non Muslim or Muslim  in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or in any mosque or Muslim country as it is for any of us  in Canada Muslim or non Muslim  Muslim and not just in Canada but  Israel or any democratic nation as opposed to a sharia law nations. That is a fact and the difference between the two.

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Rue

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Nope. Islam doesn't promote violence any more than I think Democracy promotes the violence the US and Canada have been involved in.

Islam is a religion. It most certainly promotes violence. But, you deny the passages I repeat from your Quran...and call me names.

[marcus]

7 hours ago, bcsapper said:

The focus on religious violence currently going on is proportional to the religion promoting it.

The religion of Islam promotes the old and new testament. 

You keep missing the point. 

People will find a way to excuse their violence. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, marcus said:

The religion of Islam promotes the old and new testament. 

You keep missing the point. 

People will find a way to excuse their violence. 

And if the excuse is religion, the excuse is religion. That is my point. 

[marcus]

Just now, bcsapper said:

And if the excuse is religion, the excuse is religion. That is my point. 

What is in Islam is pretty much what is in Judaism and Christianity.

People have always found a way to excuse their violence. This is not anything new. Look at the number of people Western governments have killed in the past century. You think our violence can be excused because it's not in the name of religion? 

[Guest]

Just now, marcus said:

What is in Islam is pretty much what is in Judaism and Christianity.

People have always found a way to excuse their violence. This is not anything new. Look at the number of people Western governments have killed in the past century. You think our violence can be excused because it's not in the name of religion? 

It doesn't matter which religion it's in.  It matters which religion kills because of it. If the guy in Edmonton today did what he did for Christianity, he would still be a bastard. He would just be a Christian bastard instead of a Muslim bastard.  

[marcus]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It doesn't matter which religion it's in.  It matters which religion kills because of it. If the guy in Edmonton today did what he did for Christianity, he would still be a bastard. He would just be a Christian bastard instead of a Muslim bastard.  

What if a person kills based on something other than the conventional religion? Like the millions who have died by Western governments?

The guy in Edmonton does not represent a religion. He represents an unstable person. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by marcus

[Guest]

Just now, marcus said:

The guy in Edmonton does not represent a religion. He represents an unstable person. 

The guy in Edmonton represents what he thinks he represents. I would suggest he would know.  Plus, he isn't alone. Even today, he wasn't the worst. 

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, marcus said:

What if a person kills based on something other than the conventional religion? Like the millions who have died by Western governments?

The guy in Edmonton does not represent a religion. He represents an unstable person. 

He had an ISIS flag.

[marcus]

Just now, bcsapper said:

The guy in Edmonton represents what he thinks he represents. I would suggest he would know.  Plus, he isn't alone. Even today, he wasn't the worst. 

Why do you only condemn violent people based on their religious background? Why don't you condemn all violence and all of the excuses they put forth?

You keep avoiding the big elephant in the room, which is: Western/Anglo Saxon countries have committed more violence and have killed more innocent people than anyone else in the past century.

[marcus]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

He had an ISIS flag.

ISIS does not represent Islam or Muslims.

[Guest]

Just now, marcus said:

Why do you only condemn violent people based on their religious background? Why don't you condemn all violence and all of the excuses they put forth?

You keep avoiding the big elephant in the room, which is: Western/Anglo Saxon countries have committed more violence and have killed more innocent people than anyone else in the past century.

I think the Russians and the Chinese killed more, or do you just mean the 21st?  What is there to avoid?  It's all historic record. I'm not going to look at some disgusting religious excess and tell myself it's okay because my country was at war elsewhere and elsewhen. The guy in Edmonton was an incompetent dick.  He couldn't fasten his own shoelaces. Take his colleague in Marseille. Those women had it coming, eh, due to the elephant?  

Anyone who seeks to excuse Islam of its atrocities is ignoring a multitude of elephants, including countries that have the death penalty for things that wouldn't be a crime in the west, and the murder of people who would be considered to have done nothing wrong in the west. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, marcus said:

ISIS does not represent Islam or Muslims.

ISIS is an Islamic organization that represents those Muslims who let it. It's like saying the Pope doesn't represent Christians. He represents some of them. 

[marcus]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I think the Russians and the Chinese killed more, or do you just mean the 21st?  What is there to avoid?  It's all historic record. I'm not going to look at some disgusting religious excess and tell myself it's okay because my country was at war elsewhere and elsewhen. The guy in Edmonton was an incompetent dick.  He couldn't fasten his own shoelaces. Take his colleague in Marseille. Those women had it coming, eh, due to the elephant?  

Anyone who seeks to excuse Islam of its atrocities is ignoring a multitude of elephants, including countries that have the death penalty for things that wouldn't be a crime in the west, and the murder of people who would be considered to have done nothing wrong in the west. 

Your way of thinking is shallow and superficial. 

How does a culture form? How does it advance? What sets it back? 

Let's take one of the most recent examples of a Muslim country: Iraq. Look at its history in the past 4 decades. Is it Islam that does not allow it to move forward or are there other variables involved?

[marcus]

Just now, bcsapper said:

ISIS is an Islamic organization that represents those Muslims who let it. It's like saying the Pope doesn't represent Christians. He represents some of them. 

Really?

Does your way of thinking really allow you to compare ISIS, some fringe 'group', made up of mercenaries, outcasts and people who have nothing to live for, to the.... Pope... so you can show some kind of parallel?

[Guest]

Just now, marcus said:

Your way of thinking is shallow and superficial. 

How does a culture form? How does it advance? What sets it back? 

Let's take one of the most recent examples of a Muslim country: Iraq. Look at its history in the past 4 decades. Is it Islam that does not allow it to move forward or are there other variables involved?

I would imagine a culture advances in direct proportion to the retreat of any religious influence in the culture. I haven't studied Iraq.  How does it compare to other Islamic countries that haven't been involved in three recent wars?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, marcus said:

Really?

Does your way of thinking really allow you to compare ISIS, some fringe 'group', made up of mercenaries, outcasts and people who have nothing to live for, to the.... Pope... so you can show some kind of parallel?

Not in numbers. Most of them are dead. My way of thinking allows people to decide for themselves who represents them, regardless of how much that might upset some people.

[marcus]

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would imagine a culture advances in direct proportion to the retreat of any religious influence in the culture. I haven't studied Iraq.  How does it compare to other Islamic countries that haven't been involved in three recent wars?

The U.S. backed war with Iran aside. The decades long U.S. backed sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands aside. The military attack by the Bush regime, set Iraq back by 3 generations, according to some estimates. What is one of the outcomes of this? You will get desperate, broken people, trying to take some kind of stance and the only option they have is a group like ISIS that will promise them attention, purpose, money and a platform for revenge.

People like you will look at the kid joining ISIS and shake your head and say: "See! It's Islam's fault!"

Edited October 2, 2017 by marcus

[marcus]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Not in numbers. Most of them are dead. My way of thinking allows people to decide for themselves who represents them, regardless of how much that might upset some people.

It's an awful parallel / analogy you are trying to draw.

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, Rue said:

Democracy simply refers to the concept that the people of a society delegate  representation of their view by people they elect to represent their views. It stops there.

The concept just as simply, and as it should, assumes that elected governments are honest and principled and that voters wishes are given precedence and representation over those of special interests. 

Without honesty and principles democracy is an empty meaningless concept - it simply ceases to be.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, marcus said:

The U.S. backed war with Iran aside. The decades long U.S. backed sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands aside. The military attack by the Bush regime, set Iraq back by 3 generations, according to some estimates. What is one of the outcomes of this? You will get desperate, broken people, trying to take some kind of stance and the only option they have is a group like ISIS that will promise them attention, purpose, money and a platform for revenge.

People like you will look at the kid joining ISIS and shake his head and say: "See! It's Islam's fault!"

Only when it is. It's because people like me are able to understand that a religion is the attitude of its proponents.  You take a war ravaged country and use it to excuse a blogger hacked to death in Bangladesh because of a face book post. Islam is a religion of a billion and a half people. Many of them are backwards barbarians with primitive, disgusting attitudes towards anyone who doesn't follow their interpretations to the letter. Many are not. I only worry about those who are.  

I don't know where French slasher was from but the Edmonton tosser was from Somalia, apparently.  I think both of them belong to that group.  

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, marcus said:

It's an awful parallel / analogy you are trying to draw.

It's a very simple one.  

[marcus]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Only when it is. It's because people like me are able to understand that a religion is the attitude of its proponents.  You take a war ravaged country and use it to excuse a blogger hacked to death in Bangladesh because of a face book post.

It's not the religion. A Muslim in Bangladesh who is okay with hacking a blogger because of something he didn't like does not represent a Muslim who doesn't accept this act.

Quote

Islam is a religion of a billion and a half people. Many of them are backwards barbarians with primitive, disgusting attitudes towards anyone who doesn't follow their interpretations to the letter.

Your emotions and bigotry is primitive. 

Did you get as emotional and angry when the guy in Charlottesville ran into a crowd with his car? What about the Quebec guy who shot up a mosque? Of course not. They weren't Muslim.

Quote

I don't know where French slasher was from but the Edmonton tosser was from Somalia, apparently.  I think both of them belong to that group.  

I am almost certain, just like most other profiled attackers, that they're unstable and impressionable loners, with anger issues, who are easily manipulated into taking actions such as they did.

It's interesting that you are okay with taking the actions of this guy in Edmonton as the mindset of Muslims/Islam, but the fact that every Muslim organization in Edmonton has put out statements and have spoken out against the violence by this unstable guy is nothing to you.

Your way of thinking is primitive.