Immigration of religious fanatics

[Goddess]

37 minutes ago, Omni said:

Actually they don't and those that do, do so because they choose to.

5 and 6 year old girls "choose" to wear it?

[Guest]

Just now, Canadianjim said:

I insist that Hitler believed he was doing the Lord's work because he said so. He wrote it down clearly what his views were .That was HIS  belief.

And if that's all there was, Hitler yelling "This is for Jesus, you Jewish bastards", before mowing down a bunch with a Schmeisser, I would say you had a point.

The fact that you try and equate such things with the Islamic proclivity towards killing people who don't agree with them, solely due to their religion, tells me you are not comfortable with admitting that, while all people who kill for religious reasons are nutjobs, Muslim nutjobs far outnumber the rest at the moment.

I get the impression that it bothers you that people think so.  That they say so.

[Canadianjim]

Just now, bcsapper said:

And if that's all there was, Hitler yelling "This is for Jesus, you Jewish bastards", before mowing down a bunch with a Schmeisser, I would say you had a point.

The fact that you try and equate such things with the Islamic proclivity towards killing people who don't agree with them, solely due to their religion, tells me you are not comfortable with admitting that, while all people who kill for religious reasons are nutjobs, Muslim nutjobs far outnumber the rest at the moment.

I get the impression that it bothers you that people think so.  That they say so.

You can spin all you like. I stated clearly and I proved what Hitler believed.

Perhaps you need a refresher on what terrorism is. 

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/

noun

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Canadianjim said:

You can spin all you like. I stated clearly and I proved what Hitler believed.

Perhaps you need a refresher on what terrorism is. 

ter·ror·ism

ˈterəˌrizəm/

noun

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

 

 

I already know what terrorism is.  Why did you bring that up? 

With regard to Hitler, you did not.  If we are going to get into pantomime, we can stop now. 

[Canadianjim]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I already know what terrorism is.  Why did you bring that up? 

With regard to Hitler, you did not.  If we are going to get into pantomime, we can stop now. 

Well you seem to be focused on one particular small group and seem uninterested in who has committed the most terrorism in the last few decades.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Canadianjim said:

Well you seem to be focused on one particular small group and seem uninterested in who has committed the most terrorism in the last few decades.

Oh, go on then.  Enlighten me.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

No, he didn't.  And any claim that he did is disingenuous in the extreme.

He said he did in Mein Kempf, quoted and referenced for you.  I thought you were a big believer in believing what people say are their motivations?  Or is that only if its Muslims?

[Canadianjim]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Oh, go on then.  Enlighten me.

If i have to enlighten you on who has used bombs and terror to achieve  a political aim in this day and age with so many examples, I doubt i could teach you anything if you haven't learned already. Some people have pre conceived ideas that prevent any rational analysis about what is going on around them.

[Omni]

32 minutes ago, Argus said:

It is not about the head scarf. It is about what the head scarf says about those who wear it. It says I am a full and absolute believer in Islam as it is now being interpreted by the more conservative elements of Muslim society - and all that goes with it. That includes a value system of inequality between men and women and a strong intolerance towards those who vary from the moral and social customs and laws of Islam - like gays, for example, or women who don't dress modestly. If you embrace the head scarf - and please note that while those who wear the burqua are a small number that number has tripled in ten years - then you embrace Sharia and all that Sharia says.

Again nothing but unsubstantiated assumptions. Go down to page 27 of the survey you posted and study it a little.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

He said he did in Mein Kempf, quoted and referenced for you.  I thought you were a big believer in believing what people say are their motivations?  Or is that only if its Muslims?

No, anyone.  Until I find out differently.

Like I said, I would believe it if he wasn't one of the most historically scrutinized people of the 20th Century.

 

Edit>  Do you believe the Third Reich and the accompanying atrocities were religiously motivated?

Edited December 21, 2016 by bcsapper

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Canadianjim said:

If i have to enlighten you on who has used bombs and terror to achieve  a political aim in this day and age with so many examples, I doubt i could teach you anything if you haven't learned already. Some people have pre conceived ideas that prevent any rational analysis about what is going on around them.

Ah, okay.  The fluid definition of terrorism. 

Well, as I've stated before on here, I really have no idea what it means anymore. I used to. 

 

Edited December 21, 2016 by bcsapper

[?Impact]

38 minutes ago, Argus said:

It is about what the head scarf says about those who wear it.

...

If you embrace the head scarf - then you embrace Sharia and all that Sharia says.

Really, you get that all from a piece of clothing. Did you burn your bra sister?

[Canadianjim]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Ah, okay.  The fluid definition of terrorism. 

Well, as I've stated before on here, I really have no idea what it means anymore.

Why are you questioning me? I am mystified. You asked me about Hitler. I gave you indisputable evidence."easily verifiable"  Even with that evidence you choose to imply I am lying. 

A person with even a modicum of intellectual honesty would have verified my claim before attacking it. . And yet here we are. I have read Mein Kampf and you haven't. But you want to tell me what it says. Does that suggest an intelligent person or an extremist radical?

Edited December 21, 2016 by Canadianjim

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Canadianjim said:

Who is terrorizing? It wasn't muslims that invaded iraq on a lie was it? Abu graighb torture wasn't muslims was it? You need to read the definition of terrorism.

Saddam admitted he had previously had them.

That all you have?  Tens of thousands of muslim terrorist attacks this year alone. 

Terrorism enough for you?

 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Yes you are. You are clearly justifying atrocities ftom Muslims because they are retaliating against EE.You just bloody said it.

Well, I never used the word retaliation myself so it's good to see that at some level you do understand that Islam is reacting to the abuse the west's inflicting on so any Muslims and not the other way around.

 

Quote

Hmmm. you clearly said it.

 

Good grief man...look at the words you're basing this on: It's unfortunate people feel the need to fly airliners into skyscrapers to combat that but I can certainly understand why they would.  In what universe does this bolded italicized underscored statement of mine have to do with you attributing the following to me?

Quote

I said you support ideology that supports pedophilia. Muslims can marry children,  

So can Christians. Ergo?

Quote

you support Islam, ergo.

 

I simply support the victims of abuse. Why don't you?

[Canadianjim]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

Saddam admitted he had previously had them.

That all you have?  Tens of thousands of muslim terrorist attacks this year alone. 

Terrorism enough for you?

 

Of course saddam had wmd's . Everyone knew he did. Americans supplied him with the chemicals.. After desert storm he was told to destroy them.

Some intelligence suggested he didn't destroy them. So Clinton and The UN sent in weapons inspectors to verify. 

Bush on the other hand , pulled out the inspectors, and went further in claiming saddam had reconstituted his wmd program. 

He told stories of Mobile weapons labs. Stories off a Nuclear Threat.

All lies...

Then he invaded based on those  lies. Tortured and massacred hundreds of thousands of people. Over 4 million displaced. Then the abu graighb pics came out and ISIS had a recruitment bonanza 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Canadianjim said:

Why are you questioning me? I am mystified. You asked me about Hitler. I gave you indisputable evidence."easily verifiable"  Even with that evidence you choose to imply I am lying. 

A person with even a modicum of intellectual honesty would have verified my claim before attacking it. . And yet here we are. I have read Mein Kampf and you haven't. But you want to tell me what it says. Does that suggest an intelligent person or an extremist radical?

I have a copy of "Mein Kampf".  I have tried to read it more than once.  Failed.

I also have copies of "Hitler" by Alan Bullock, "The Last Days of Hitler"  by Hugh Trevor-Roper, and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer, among many books on the subject, and I have read those.  Your claim is nonsense.  I am not trying to tell you what "Mein Kampf" says.  I am speaking to its relevance.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

This is about fanatical immigrants to Canada, not the interminable Israel-Arab conflict.

Somebody please tell Argus the Israel-Arab conflict has basically been reduced to a petty squabble in light of WW3 that's happening all around it.

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, drummindiver said:

Saddam admitted he had previously had them.

That all you have?  Tens of thousands of muslim terrorist attacks this year alone. 

Terrorism enough for you?

 

The US knew he previously had them, they had the receipts after all. That was at the end of the first Gulf War. By the time Bush and Co. invaded for the second one the UN had determined Saddam had complied with the sanctions. That's why Dubya doesn't travel much these days. He could find himself in front of the ICC. 

[Canadianjim]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I have a copy of "Mein Kampf".  I have tried to read it more than once.  Failed.

I also have copies of "Hitler" by Alan Bullock, "The Last Days of Hitler"  by Hugh Trevor-Roper, and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer, among many books on the subject, and I have read those.  Your claim is nonsense.  I am not trying to tell you what "Mein Kampf" says.  I am speaking to its relevance.

You just contradicted your self.

"  Your claim is nonsense.  I am not trying to tell you what "Mein Kampf" says.  I am speaking to its relevance."

 

So is my claim about what Hitler  said nonsense or not? You can't have it both ways.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Somebody please tell Argus the Israel-Arab conflict has basically been reduced to a petty squabble in light of WW3 that's happening all around it.

All I can say is good luck trying to get that point across.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Canadianjim said:

You just contradicted your self.

"  Your claim is nonsense.  I am not trying to tell you what "Mein Kampf" says.  I am speaking to its relevance."

 

So is my claim about what Hitler  said nonsense or not? You can't have it both ways.

That depends.  Let's be clear.  Are you stating that Hitler did what he did in the name of his religious beliefs, or only that such is stated in "Mein Kampf", or both? 

I am not arguing about the wording in "Mein Kampf".  If you claim there is something written somewhere, it's pretty easy to subtantiate that claim.  If you claim that what is written can be used to prove the justification for what Hitler did over the next 20 years or so, I dispute that.

Edited December 21, 2016 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction - Blaise Pascal

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Enough with the Israel stuff, please. This is about fanatical immigrants to Canada, not the interminable Israel-Arab conflict.

You can include some of the ultra Orthodox Jews that in many ways mimic the behavior you are not in approval of. Fanatics are fanatics either way right?

[drummindiver]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

 

What the Hague is more well known for are the criminal trials against individuals (leaders) for things like mass genocide. It was here for example that the trials of NAZI war criminals took place, a separate tribunal in Tokyo dealt with Japanese war criminals. 

You know so much about the Hague yet you dont know Nazi war tribunals happened in Nuremburg. In Germany. You knew that right? 

 

[Canadianjim]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That depends.  Let's be clear.  Are you stating that Hitler did what he did in the name of his religious beliefs, or only that such is stated in "Mein Kampf", or both? 

I am not arguing about the wording in "Mein Kampf".  If you claim there is something written somewhere, it's pretty easy to subtantiate that claim.  If you claim that what is written can be used to prove the justification for what Hitler did over the next 20 years or so, I dispute that.

I never made the claim he justified every action with his belief in God. Never for a second. The same way i don't believe every muslim acts because of God. I think abu graighb pics were more than enough motivation for some people regardless of God.