Quran have been attacked

[kactus]

36 minutes ago, Altai said:

You are looking at the events superficial and this is misleading you. You need to learn to ask true questions.  Below a few examples for true questions;

Why there is no conflicts between Muslims in Turkiye, in Saudi, in Qatar, in Iran ? (Despite these countries are not real Muslim countries for me, I am ust talking according to your mind.) 

Why all the conflics happen in Western involved and destabilized "Muslim" countries ? Why noone is blowing up a market place in my country ? 

Did you read the memories of ex British intelligence guys ? They admits how they are making people enemies to each other. Do you remember the British soldiers caught in Iraq with Muslim style dresses and bombs in their bags ? 

This is a valud point and I always wondered why every single damn Muslim country the west has intervened is in such chaos! The rise of Alqaeda, Bin Laden or ISIS was unheard of before 9/11. Certainly the corrupted saudi family supported by the west provided the breathing air for  and these muslim wahabism and the creation of ISIS. The US administration always perceived Islam post cold war era as tge new evil yet it provided support to these extremist groups financially and by arming them to tge teeth militarily. This still carries on through lucrative contracts ...

In Britain home grown muslims and british natives are recruited to fight side by side against terrorists in Syria and one has to wonder what is behind all these madness....

Edited March 30, 2017 by kactus

[taxme]

8 hours ago, Goddess said:

In Norway, Muslim men protested the women's shelters and demanded that any Muslim woman who showed up be turned away and handed over to a tribunal of Muslim men for "punishment".

 

Lucky for those women in Norway that they are not living in some muslim sharia law country or they would probably be beheaded or stoned to death for doing such a thing. Islam must make sure that women are taught to know their place in life. What a backwards archaic 10th century religion. 

[taxme]

7 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The Quran is clear that the righteous go to Paradise...men and women. Not to be confused with entering Paradise as a Jihadi where ones sins are washed away for dying fighting for Allah's sake. (9:111)

And whoever does righteous deeds, whether male or female, while being a believer - those will enter Paradise and will not be wronged, [even as much as] the speck on a date seed. (4:124)

What makes a woman 'righteous' in Islam is what is up for grabs.

If a woman prayed the five daily prayers, fasted the month of Ramadan, maintained her chastity and obeyed her husband, it would be said to her, 'Enter Paradise from whatever gate you like.'

---Mohammad

However...the influence of the Unbeliever is to be shunned if one wants Paradise as the Final Destination. Women's Rights...etc. Oh...and no leaving Islam allowed.

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper. (4:89)

As well, a woman's place is next to her husband. If he's a sinner and destined for Hellfire...guess what? That's right...

Mohammad also said: “There will be no unmarried person in Paradise.”

Take the above as given...I suppose. The Hadiths are full of Big Mo's sayings on the conditions of females entering paradise...usually in relation to the status of marriage...or lack there-of.

“If a woman died before marrying in this world, Allah The Almighty will provide her with a husband who will delight her heart. Bliss in Paradise is equally for men and women, and it certainly includes marriage.”

It goes on....

 

 

The Christian bible is full of lovey-dovey stories too. All religions talk about a heaven but no one has ever come back and told us, yes, there is a heaven so be good now. Indeed, it does go on, but nothing is ever proven. Enjoy your life while you are alive because this just might be it. 

[bush_cheney2004]

39 minutes ago, kactus said:

...The rise of Alqaeda, Bin Laden or ISIS was unheard of before 9/11.

 

Complete nonsense of course.... al-Qaeda attacks were very much heard of prior to 9/11/2001:

1992 - Yemen Hotel bombings

1993 - WTC truck bomb (New York)

1998 - U.S. embassy bombings (Kenya, Tanzania)

2000 -  U.S. warship bombing(s)

 

[kactus]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Complete nonsense of course.... al-Qaeda attacks were very much heard of prior to 9/11/2001:

1992 - Yemen Hotel bombings

1993 - WTC truck bomb (New York)

1998 - U.S. embassy bombings (Kenya, Tanzania)

2000 -  U.S. warship bombing(s)

 

Granted.....However tge reference to AlQaeda is because of Bin Laden and the formidable he became through support and assistance that was provided to him in Saudi Arabia. Same goes for ISIS.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

The lies have gone on for much much too long. All this murder, unbelievable misery and sadness, all because of one big lie, covered by many smaller lies, probably more lies than the numbers killed, all to hide the lies and the numbers murdered.

 

Quote

The Lancet study The basis of the Lancet study, which was executed by a U.S.-Iraqi team led by renowned scientists at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, was a survey of a representative selection of 1,850 Iraqi households 109 Hicks, Dardagan, Serdán, Bagnall, Sloboda & Spagat, op. cit. 110 “Iraq Body Count: A Very Misleading Exercise”, Media Lens, October 3, 2007. 111 Burnham, Doocy, Lafta & Roberts, op. cit. - 44 Iraq across the entire country. Altogether, almost 13,000 persons participated in the poll. The study recorded both the deaths in the 15 months before and the deaths in the 40 months after the start of the war; over 90% of these deaths were corroborated by death certificates. According to the study, the mortality rate increased from 5.5 deaths per annum and per 1,000 inhabitants the year before the war to 13.3 in the period thereafter. The difference between the two gives the number of persons per 1,000 who would be still alive without the war and occupation. Projected over a total population of around 26 million and a time frame of around 40 months, we are talking about 655,000 lives lost. This is only an estimate, but the imprecision of this number due to the very small fraction of the population polled can be determined mathematically. According to this calculation, the actual number of casualties has a 95 percent likelihood of being between 390,000 und 940,000 – the so-called 95% confidence interval. Within this interval, numbers around 655,000 have the greatest likelihood, whereas higher and lower numbers become more unlikely the further away from this value they are. The likelihood that the actual casualty number is under 600,000 is less than 20%; that the number is fewer than 390,000 has a likelihood of only 2.5%. By the same method, the number of violent deaths was estimated at 601,000, with a confidence interval between 426,000 and 794,000. The method applied here is standard. It was also applied in the DRC, Angola and

Above is an example of how they conducted their study and arrived at their numbers....i take it you read that part of the source.........they did a survey of 1850 Iraqi households, then used math to come up with their numbers for the rest of the country........and this is the gold standard of estimating Casualties....what we do not know is how many were wounded, how many killed, and by whom, .....now according to you and your source any of these deaths or woundings, would not have happened if the US and it's coalition were not there......so all fingers are now pointing at the west.....

I also want to point out that the numbers they estimated for Iraq conflict are 390,000 to 940,000......WOW that is the gold standard for accuracy...sounds like odds you get at the horse track.....this is what confuses me that my wiki source, has sources list within it, such as WHO, UN, NGO's, even Amnesty inter national ....now they say there numbers are from counting the actual wounded and dead.... and some how they are not good enough for you, that you had to resort to this source that guessed.....

One more thing , i added up the numbers for Afghanistan, and Iraq, but they don't even come close to the 4 mil mark....in fact they don't come close to the 1 mil mark....of course maybe i'm guessing.....or using the new math....

One thing for sure a lot of lives were lost.....

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

You are looking at the events superficial and this is misleading you. You need to learn to ask true questions.  Below a few examples for true questions;

Why there is no conflicts between Muslims in Turkiye, in Saudi, in Qatar, in Iran ? (Despite these countries are not real Muslim countries for me, I am ust talking according to your mind.) 

Why all the conflics happen in Western involved and destabilized "Muslim" countries ? Why noone is blowing up a market place in my country ? 

Did you read the memories of ex British intelligence guys ? They admits how they are making people enemies to each other. Do you remember the British soldiers caught in Iraq with Muslim style dresses and bombs in their bags ? 


Now Muslim countries are trying to create a Muslim Union in the lead of Turkiye and Western countries are getting mad at it. Because their chance to involve in Muslim countries jobs is being put at risk. 

Muslim Turkish Army is one of the a few armies in the World has the highest level of morality. Our army will never bomb somewhere randomly. Again you are blaming others to justify your own crimes. 

I am not being mislead ....are you saying Turkish military have not engaged ISIS or other muslim in this conflict, I have video of turkish tanks being blown up by isis fighters....Ohh i get it ISIS is not muslim according to you.....well they say they are....

right now there is 136 conflicts around the world right now, the US is involved in some of them.....not just in the middle east....last time i checked your country has suffered from a coup, plus their has been terrorist attacks by the kurds.....or is this all false news as well.....

A muslim union will not happen, to much in fighting among'st themselves......Turkey is better off with NATO....you guys can not help your own countries let alone band together and help each other......that being said i wish you would band together and start to control the fringe or extremist muslims. 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Canada doesn't have freedom of expression. See section 1 of the charter and all of our 'hate speech' laws.

Actually I Googled and looked at the Charter today and it does guarantee freedom of expression.  Didn't you see it in the Charter? 

The laws concerning hate speech are limited to certain circumstances and are subject to reasonable limits and the Charter.  Altai quoted a Canadian law above and I answered her to show her that the law says right in it it applies if the speech (or expression such as tearing up a Quran in public) if it is likely to cause a riot.  As I pointed out to her that would limit the law to a situation where a group of Muslims were present such as a meeting in a Mosque.  You couldn't go in and tear up a Quran because it would likely cause a riot.  That is the kind of thing the law she quoted would apply.  There is no law that completely prohibits freedom of expression guaranteed in the Constitution.  Such a law would be unconstitutional.

[-1=e^ipi]

Just now, blackbird said:

Actually I Googled and looked at the Charter today and it does guarantee freedom of expression.  Didn't you see it in the Charter?

No it doesn't. It pretends to. But section 2 is limited by section 1 and as a result we do not have true freedom of expression in Canada like the fortunate citizens of the USA have.

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

The laws concerning hate speech are limited to certain circumstances and are subject to reasonable limits and the Charter.

Not reasonable at all. All hate speech should be legal and a society that bans 'hate speech' is a society that does not have freedom of speech.

[blackbird]

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

No it doesn't. It pretends to. But section 2 is limited by section 1 and as a result we do not have true freedom of expression in Canada like the fortunate citizens of the USA have.

 

Just now, -1=e^ipi said:

No it doesn't. It pretends to. But section 2 is limited by section 1 and as a result we do not have true freedom of expression in Canada like the fortunate citizens of the USA have.

I don't know what the U.S. has.  but you are correct in saying freedom of speech in Canada is not unlimited.  You don't have it in a situation which is likely to cause a riot or libel or slander an individual.  But there is nothing in the law about fair criticism of an ideology or religion.

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Not reasonable at all. All hate speech should be legal and a society that bans 'hate speech' is a society that does not have freedom of speech.

Yes, many people have argued that the Constitution and Charter brought in by Trudeau was a deceptive document and the Supreme Court has been in effect writing new laws themselves.  An unelected group of nine judges creating laws.  Totally undemocratic.  But yes, our freedom of speech is limited thanks to the courts.  We need to defend what freedom of expression we have.  Doing nothing is not an option.  "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."  Can't remember who said that but it's true.

Edited March 31, 2017 by blackbird

[-1=e^ipi]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

I don't know what the U.S. has.

The USA doesn't have some section 1 limiting their first amendment like Canada has limiting section 2 of the charter.

 

Whatever the government deems a 'reasonable' restriction is allowed. Thus, our freedom of speech is an illusion. Fact is, criminal codes 319 and 320 are not deemed unconstitutional by our failure of a constitution. If we had proper constitutional protections of freedom of speech we wouldn't have to put up with such nonsense.

[-1=e^ipi]

@ Blackbird - "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Wendell Phillips 1852.

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The USA doesn't have some section 1 limiting their first amendment like Canada has limiting section 2 of the charter.

 

Whatever the government deems a 'reasonable' restriction is allowed. Thus, our freedom of speech is an illusion. Fact is, criminal codes 319 and 320 are not deemed unconstitutional by our failure of a constitution. If we had proper constitutional protections of freedom of speech we wouldn't have to put up with such nonsense.

Yes, there's a lot of truth in that.  Individual citizens are also blocked and hurt by the Human Rights Councils in Canada.  A kind of kangaroo court where anybody can make a complaint and they are provided with legal representation free of charge while the defendant must pay for his own lawyer.  This happened to Ezra Levant.  He won after two years in a Human Rights Tribunal but it cost him 100,000 dollars in legal fees in the end.  So who really won?  If one has to hire a lawyer and fight through the courts, it's not really freedom.

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

@ Blackbird - "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Wendell Phillips 1852.

It was in 1852.  Now it's eternal surveillance.

[Altai]

10 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I am not being mislead ....are you saying Turkish military have not engaged ISIS or other muslim in this conflict, I have video of turkish tanks being blown up by isis fighters....Ohh i get it ISIS is not muslim according to you.....well they say they are....

right now there is 136 conflicts around the world right now, the US is involved in some of them.....not just in the middle east....last time i checked your country has suffered from a coup, plus their has been terrorist attacks by the kurds.....or is this all false news as well.....

A muslim union will not happen, to much in fighting among'st themselves......Turkey is better off with NATO....you guys can not help your own countries let alone band together and help each other......that being said i wish you would band together and start to control the fringe or extremist muslims. 

LoL this was what I meant. So you cant even tolerate the idea of a "Muslim Union". You are reacting it instantly, "Nooo there cant be such a thing, Muslims cant stay without figthing "  Yes we can but we should first kick Westerners out of the game. You have no place here. Turkiye is getting stronger and we are boosting the development of poor Muslim countries. Qatar and Turkiye will combine their state treasuries soon, do you know what does this mean ?  We will cut all the Arab money going to Western, do you know what does this mean ? Do you know why Turkish Halkbank Ceo is detained in US a few days ago ? Because we are kicking Western Banks out of the game and collecting all the oil money of Iraq in Halkbank  We still didnt even start, you will see much more interesting things in the future.

I have topics for your false-claims. As I said we have discussed these things. You can post there or you can start a new topic and I will destroy your fake/false claims in 30 seconds. Go !!! 

[betsy]

14 hours ago, Argus said:

I can save you the bother. Basically, the report was made by several very left wing people, and says that any Muslim who has died in any kind of conflict is our fault. Regardless of who died or why they died. If they died before the violence in Iraq, then it's the fault of sanctions, and it's our fault. If he died because some other Muslim killed him, be it in Iraq or Pakistan or Afghanistan, it's the fault of the West. It's basically a sort of bleeding heart liberal view of the world, where the White people are responsible for all ills because non-White people can't be any more held responsible for their actions than children. It's a deeply racist belief, but bleeding heart liberals never engage much in self-examination. Most media dismissed it as garbage. You'll only find it on the kind of fringe left sites where they love to crow about conspiracies and how evil the West is.

 

That's how people from certain culture think.  My friend worked in the Middle east and he said if you get hit by a car, it'll end up being your fault, simply by being there.  If you're not there, you wouldn't have been hit by the car. 

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

The laws concerning hate speech are limited to certain circumstances and are subject to reasonable limits

 

What are "reasonable limits?"  They can dictate what they think those "reasonable limits" are......that's where the slippery slope lies.

Edited March 31, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

31 minutes ago, betsy said:

What are "reasonable limits?"  They can dictate what they think those "reasonable limits" are......that's where the slippery slope lies.

Who is 'they' ?  I don't see anybody dictating anything here, but rather a difficult dialogue happening.  There is definitely resistance to allowing religious freedom across the board, with even members on here trying to equate private prayer clubs in schools with allowing Christian prayers for the entire student body.

To negotiate reasonable limits you need a reasonable public and that's a pretty hard thing to manage.

[betsy]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who is 'they' ?  I don't see anybody dictating anything here,

 

"They," would be people in power.....like Justin Trudeau.  Or, appointed judges who can manipulate the charter.

As an example.....what constitutes  Islamophobia isn't clearly stated.  Freedom of speech is compromised.

Edited March 31, 2017 by betsy

[dialamah]

23 minutes ago, betsy said:

"They," would be people in power.....like Justin Trudeau.  Or, appointed judges who can manipulate the charter.

As an example.....what constitutes  Islamophobia isn't clearly stated.  Freedom of speech is compromised.

Whatever freedom of speech we have has not changed in the least as a result of M103 so that's a very poor example.

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Whatever freedom of speech we have has not changed in the least as a result of M103 so that's a very poor example.

Whom are you kidding?  They didn't table a motion - wasting taxpayers money -  for nothing. That's the problem with a lot of people - everything is fine and dandy until something actually happens.  They've seemed to have lost the ability to see how things can go - before they actually do.

 

I don't know why this current mindset is onto "prevention"....when they don't have an inkling of what important factor is needed to do an effective preventative measure.

 

Anyway, i gave it as an example of what can be manipulated. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Whatever freedom of speech we have has not changed in the least as a result of M103 so that's a very poor example.

Somebody is unaware how the game is played.

Let's just go through this M-103 political exercise for NO REASON.

Not likely, Holmes.

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Somebody is unaware how the game is played.

Let's just go through this M-103 political exercise for NO REASON.

Not likely, Holmes.

What is the Ottawa Protocol?