Women Who Cover Their Faces Shouldn't Be accepted To Enter Canada!

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, Peter F said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars

 

Seeing the Saxons threw the first punch in that war, it really doesn't fit the mold. But, I suppose that the results were the eventual conversion...at times by force...to Christianity.

So do you feel Islam faced a similar situation?

[Peter F]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

The Saxons weren't conquered by Christians, they were converted by Christian missionaries

Well granted the Christian missionaries came along with the armies and the locals were givien the option of convert or die. 

 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Peter F said:

Well granted the Christian missionaries came along with the armies and the locals were givien the option of convert or die. 

 

 

Was this the standard mold in your opinion for the spread of Christianity? Convert or die?

[Peter F]

Pretty much, yes.  Die or be enslaved - either or. Not just Christianity but practically every King that every existed dressed up thier quests for more land in the righteous garb of "God Wills It" like a bunch of modern-day televangelists. Arabs too.

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Was this the standard mold in your opinion for the spread of Christianity? Convert or die?

It certainly was historically. You've heard of Constantine I I assume?

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, Peter F said:

Well granted the Christian missionaries came along with the armies and the locals were givien the option of convert or die.

Simply not true.

Christianity was largely reintroduced to Britain by the Gregorian Mission, c. 600. Establishing his archdiocese at Canterbury, St Augustine failed to establish his authority over the Welsh church at Chester but his mission—with help from Scottish missionaries such as SS Aidan and Cuthbert—proved successful in Kent and then Northumbria: the two provinces of the English church continue to be led from the cathedrals of Canterbury and York (est. 735). Owing to the importance of the Scottish missions, Northumbria initially followed the native church in its calculation of Easter and tonsure but then aligned itself with Canterbury and Rome at the 664 Synod of Whitby. Early English Christian documents surviving from this time include the 7th-century illuminated Lindisfarne Gospels and the historical accounts written by the Venerable Bede. The Irish and Scots adopted the Roman practices over the 7th & 8th centuries; around 768, "Archbishop" Elfodd of "Gwynedd" finally convinced the Welsh to follow, although it was not until after the reign of Bernard that the bishop of St Davids was finally compelled to submit to the authority of Canterbury and the English church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_in_Britain

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Peter F said:

Pretty much, yes.  Die or be enslaved - either or. Not just Christianity but practically every King that every existed dressed up thier quests for more land in the righteous garb of "God Wills It" like a bunch of modern-day televangelists. Arabs too.

 

It is my understanding that the vast number of people were either converted by missions or when the Roman Empire converted en mass.  

[Army Guy]

Are we suppose to turn a blind eye, or keep our opinion to ourselves in regards to anything done in islam name , because we have a tainted past as well is that your statement....

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

It certainly was historically. You've heard of Constantine I I assume?

 

Before you, I'm betting.

Convert or Die was the offer given in the Pact of Omar...then the opportunity for Jizya and Dhimmitude was introduced when that proved too costly in terms of military campaigns.

 

[Omni]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Before you, I'm betting.

Convert or Die was the offer given in the Pact of Omar...then the opportunity for Jizya and Dhimmitude was introduced when that proved too costly in terms of military campaigns.

 

And then how 'bout Theodosius?

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Are we suppose to turn a blind eye, or keep our opinion to ourselves in regards to anything done in islam name , because we have a tainted past as well is that your statement....

 

Islam's defenders are doing exactly that: using Medieval events to justify Islam's current violence...they're the real victims, you know.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Omni said:

And then how 'bout Theodosius?

 

What about Caligula?

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Are we suppose to turn a blind eye, or keep our opinion to ourselves in regards to anything done in islam name , because we have a tainted past as well is that your statement....

We are not allowed to discuss what's going on in Islam unless we:

1. Acknowledge that there are also good Muslims (We all did this in one thread, but apparently it has to happen EVERY TIME YOU COMMENT)

2. What's going on in Islam is to ONLY BE MENTIONED IN PASSING.  The focus must always be on the failures of Christianity and the West.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

We are not allowed to discuss what's going on in Islam unless we:

1. Acknowledge that there are also good Muslims (We all did this in one thread, but apparently it has to happen EVERY TIME YOU COMMENT)

2. What's going on in Islam is to ONLY BE MENTIONED IN PASSING.  The focus must always be on the failures of Christianity and the West.

 

Islam is likely to attack somewhere tomorrow.

Charlemagne less so.

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

We are not allowed to discuss what's going on in Islam unless we:

1. Acknowledge that there are also good Muslims (We all did this in one thread, but apparently it has to happen EVERY TIME YOU COMMENT)

2. What's going on in Islam is to ONLY BE MENTIONED IN PASSING.  The focus must always be on the failures of Christianity and the West.

Sorry i lost my head for a minute, there are good muslims, just none that want to change the religion of Islam for the better, or update it to reflect todays world..... and yet it is alright change it back a few 100 years, or to interpret it in some backwards mission statement to suit their cause.....

This is my first post in a long time, hoping that it counts as a remark made in passing.....But what do i know i am just a filthy white christian, who has seen some of the depths that extremists can go....

[Peter F]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Are we suppose to turn a blind eye, or keep our opinion to ourselves in regards to anything done in islam name , because we have a tainted past as well is that your statement....

Ok, Finally we get to the heart of the matter.  I agree with you by the way. The past is best left in the past. If we keep dragging it up nothing gets accomplished.  

Some Muslims (and there's many an Imam that says these guys got it all wrong ) commit atrocities. According to many here All (well, not quite all; Most) Muslims are on the same side. Therefore when those muslims committed atrocities it then follows that most Muslims also want to/will commit atrocities. That is the issue I am arguing. I cannot stand this bullshit of 'those guys did that so do something about every one of them Muslim. Because even without any evidence whatsoever (and this is where History is passed off as evidence of an indicivuals muslims intent) of a muslims desire to commit terror, well we have DoP who points to the Siege of Vienna or the last fall of Constantinople and says See? What more proof is required?

I'm all for terrorists being incarcerated for the rest of thier days. Im all in favour of the police forces of our land arresting those who are planning on committing terrorism, putting them on trial and incarcertating them for very long periods of time.    But I do not support in anyway whatsoever punishing those that we haven't got a shred of evidence against. And I don't give a shit what thier religion is or even if they have any religion at all.

 

 

 

[Goddess]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

.But what do i know i am just a filthy white christian, who has seen some of the depths that extremists can go....

And I thank you for that.  My grandfather was a US Army WWll vet, so I have a soft spot for you fellas.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Peter F said:

Ok, Finally we get to the heart of the matter.  I agree with you by the way. The past is best left in the past. If we keep dragging it up nothing gets accomplished.  

Some Muslims (and there's many an Imam that says these guys got it all wrong ) commit atrocities. According to many here All (well, not quite all; Most) Muslims are on the same side. Therefore when those muslims committed atrocities it then follows that most Muslims also want to/will commit atrocities. That is the issue I am arguing. I cannot stand this bullshit of 'those guys did that so do something about every one of them Muslim. Because even without any evidence whatsoever (and this is where History is passed off as evidence of an indicivuals muslims intent) of a muslims desire to commit terror, well we have DoP who points to the Siege of Vienna or the last fall of Constantinople and says See? What more proof is required?

I'm all for terrorists being incarcerated for the rest of thier days. Im all in favour of the police forces of our land arresting those who are planning on committing terrorism, putting them on trial and incarcertating them for very long periods of time.    But I do not support in anyway whatsoever punishing those that we haven't got a shred of evidence against. And I don't give a shit what thier religion is or even if they have any religion at all.

 

I'm well aware that you must show Islam as being no better or worse than Judaism or Christianity that it was intended to replace. Islam imagines itself the skinny kid at the beach getting sand kicked on 'him'. When those bully Jews refused to bow down to Mohammad as the next Moses, Islam had no choice but to hit the gym and prepare for that day he could punch those Jews in the nose. Pretty much sums it up better than you'd admit...

Meanwhile...my point stands. Islam WILL attack SOMEWHERE tomorrow. 

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

So... in other words.. yes. You  did.

So you finally agree with me that blaming everyone for what the minority does is wrong and stupid.

[Goddess]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Meanwhile...my point stands. Islam WILL attack SOMEWHERE tomorrow. 

Yesterday, Canadian Tire.

Today, Tim Horton's?  

It doesn't get much more Canadian than that.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

So you finally agree with me that blaming everyone for what the minority does is wrong and stupid.

 

Only a small fraction of the Nazi establishment had any hand murdering Jews.

[DogOnPorch]

Remember: The Quran does not say...

Love thy neighbour.

Thou shall not kill.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Yesterday, Canadian Tire.

Today, Tim Horton's?  

It doesn't get much more Canadian than that.

 

Oh...just a nut-job dontchaknow?

Even when they state their intentions...our collective incredulity won't allow us to believe it.

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Oh...just a nut-job dontchaknow?

Even when they state their intentions...our collective incredulity won't allow us to believe it.

I did notice that - the woman in the OP pledged allegiance to ISIS and went to a store with a knife hidden in her burka.

But here, the apologist response is, "She doesn't mean that!"  

They will never accept that maybe she does mean just that.....

Edited June 7, 2017 by Goddess

[Army Guy]

21 minutes ago, Peter F said:

Ok, Finally we get to the heart of the matter.  I agree with you by the way. The past is best left in the past. If we keep dragging it up nothing gets accomplished.  

Some Muslims (and there's many an Imam that says these guys got it all wrong ) commit atrocities. According to many here All (well, not quite all; Most) Muslims are on the same side. Therefore when those muslims committed atrocities it then follows that most Muslims also want to/will commit atrocities. That is the issue I am arguing. I cannot stand this bullshit of 'those guys did that so do something about every one of them Muslim. Because even without any evidence whatsoever (and this is where History is passed off as evidence of an indicivuals muslims intent) of a muslims desire to commit terror, well we have DoP who points to the Siege of Vienna or the last fall of Constantinople and says See? What more proof is required?

I'm all for terrorists being incarcerated for the rest of thier days. Im all in favour of the police forces of our land arresting those who are planning on committing terrorism, putting them on trial and incarcertating them for very long periods of time.    But I do not support in anyway whatsoever punishing those that we haven't got a shred of evidence against. And I don't give a shit what thier religion is or even if they have any religion at all.

 

 

 

I think when the past continues to show a clear pattern of behavior it needs to be added to the conversation. not made the main topic of conversation but added as a fact to consider. 

You have to admit that there is also many Imams that broad cast the wrong message, or messages of hate and violence, and some of these Imams are in the west, converting our own citizens to bring harm to us.....or converting or taking advantage of certain situations to get foreign born muslims to do their bidding....and there is no shortages of these people, and when there is a shortage they force them to carry out tasks by black mail, or threats to family.....then there is money , security, or promises of virgins, family safety etc....pretty easy to take advantage of people when your living in very poor conditions..... Those born in Canada, should face longer prisons terms....

The muslim world needs to take action on these extremists, more along the lines like what is happening in Qatar right now....i know those countries involved are not totally innocent either, but there needs to be a "muslim" solution for it to succeed.....for extremists to have no refuge.....any wheres...

As for our laws i think the liberals are making a mistake by taking powers away from existing laws ...and should be on the same level of thinking as the British....who are now thinking about adapting a new law that could find people deported or punished by the law when though they do not have all the evidence they need for conviction...but they know they have committed crimes....or using evidence that was collected illegally,that proves guilt. i know this opens up a huge concern of being misused, but it has tied law enforcement hands from taking legal action against them....

Just the fact that some of these immigrants or refugees have criminal records and are not reported to immigration or any other government depts, these people should be rounded up and sent home, this goes with any false claims they have made.....and to go with all that when a court signs a deportation order, that person should be arrested and escorted to the airport ASAP, not years later.....