Global Non-Military Islamic Jihad and Canada

[9-18-1]

Watch, learn, connect.

[cannuck]

I somewhat agree with the crazy lady on this topic.  While I don't believe racism is innate in the human animal, the propensity to BE racist certainly is.  The need to survive requires that tribal groups be able to distinguish between those who are allies and those who are a threat, just as other animals need to learn what species are a threat and which can be safely ignored...and of course what species can be eaten.  These may well be learned behaviour, but the innate property is the social/familial group is employed to define what those risks and benefits to interaction with other identifiably different animals might be.  Of course, there can be threats from within a species, breed, tribe or family, thus to reach that level of specificity to discriminate, the simple task of different colour skin, shape of body, etc. is a very basic subset of those REQUIRED skills.

BTW: Painting Japan as some kind of victim is foolish.  While it is very true that Western countries had vast colonial presence in Asia, it was japan that invaded Mancuria in 1931 and China proper in 1937 that set the stage for the American blockades, not some wild conspiracy for Yanks to own the suchi market.   About THE most racist people on this planet are the japanese.  You need to speak with Chinese who were subject to the pure BS of "Asia for Asians" that the Japs spewed as propoganda for the sole purpose of wanting to immitate the success of Western countries in colonizing and exploiting their Asian neighbours.

I have one major criteria for judging what a nation and its race demonstrates to earn my respect - or hatred.   That is how did they treat prisoners of war and citizens of occupied territories.  On that count, it puts Japan at the top of the heap of the biggest assholes in history.  THEY make their distinction solely upon race of their counterparts, so what kind of stupid person would then not reciprocate in defense?

Edited December 27, 2017 by cannuck

[9-18-1]

If one wants to understand how jihad is employed via civilizational means, here is a good reference:

https://www.politicalislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/PDF-Downloads/Sharia_Law_for_Non-Muslims.pdf

Excerpt:

FOUR KINDS OF JIHAD

Jihad can be practiced by the sword, speech, writing or money. The

jihad of the sword is the least dangerous to a society. Jihadist groups are

not as dangerous to the West as the civilizational jihad of groups such as

the Muslim Brotherhood.

[OftenWrong]

8 minutes ago, 9-18-1 said:

FOUR KINDS OF JIHAD

Jihad can be practiced by the sword, speech, writing or money. The

jihad of the sword is the least dangerous to a society. Jihadist groups are

not as dangerous to the West as the civilizational jihad of groups such as

the Muslim Brotherhood.

What is the point of Jihad? Does the Quran specifically instruct Muslims to commit Jihad?

[9-18-1]

1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

What is the point of Jihad? Does the Quran specifically instruct Muslims to commit Jihad?

Excerpts:

Jihad means war against Kafirs to establish Islam’s Sharia law.

 

Koran 2:216

You are commanded to fight although you dislike it. You may

      hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for

   you. Allah knows and you do not.

 

Koran 4:89

They would have you become Kafirs like them so you will all

              be the same. Therefore, do not take any of them as friends until they have

                abandoned their homes to fight for Allah’s cause [jihad]. But if they turn

              back, find them and kill them wherever they are.

 

Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it, it is

no longer obligatory upon others.

The caliph (supreme ruler who is both a king and similar to a pope)

makes war on the Jews and Christians. First invite them to Islam,

         then invite them to pay the jizya (tax on Kafirs). If they reject conversion

         and the jizya, then attack them.

 

Koran 9:29

        Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and

Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not

          forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and

          Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll

            tax [jizya] and they are humiliated.

 

...etc. There is a lot more info in the document regarding the true nature of Jihad which I invite all to read.

 

In a nutshell; jihad is the principle modus operandi of spreading Islam.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

9-18

The Bible has passages calling for death as punishment for sins and disbelief.  We don't suspect our Christian neighbours of being brainwashed, so why would we do so for other religions?

[9-18-1]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

9-18

The Bible has passages calling for death as punishment for sins and disbelief.  We don't suspect our Christian neighbours of being brainwashed, so why would we do so for other religions?

You may not suspect this, but unfortunately all monotheistic religions dealing with the God of Abraham are false.

Even prior to Islam; upon Constantine declaring Jesus was a historical man who died on the cross for the sins of the world, many persecutions of "infidels" and "unbelievers" occurred which resulted in them either accepting J. C. as Lord (fall into the RC Empire) or having their heads removed.

The Bible (both OT and NT) has a strictly astrological basis; Abram (Abraham) and Sarai are the Sun and Moon, Moses is the Sun, Jesus is the Sun etc. The astrological knowledge is encoded in story form for the purpose of transmitting the cycles of the cosmos in story form that they may be absorbed much easier than a technical approach - it is easier to learn from narrative than it is an otherwise more technical way.

Monotheism (whether it is Christianity or Islam) has been systematically brainwashing people for thousands of years. In the case of Islam (and the purpose of this thread) there is a significant political component which employs systemic infiltration/subjugation of all non-Muslims.

Here is a document which outlines how Islam employs such tactics to spread Sharia law:

https://www.politicalislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/PDF-Downloads/Sharia_Law_for_Non-Muslims.pdf

Some books which deconstruct the astrological basis of the OT/NT:

https://www.amazon.ca/Astrology-Testament-Lost-Word-Regained/dp/1564599302/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514827551&sr=8-1&keywords=lost+word+regained
https://www.amazon.ca/Who-this-King-Glory-Christos-Messiah/dp/1461190363/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514827570&sr=1-1&keywords=who+is+this+king+of+glory
https://www.amazon.ca/Gospel-Zodiac-Secret-Truth-about/dp/1590200373/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1514827716&sr=1-4-fkmr0&keywords=dill+darlison

[Michael Hardner]

So why single out one religion?  And what is the solution?  You want to ban religion?  

If so, then you have a strong dictatorial instinct.

[9-18-1]

45 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

So why single out one religion?  And what is the solution?  You want to ban religion?  

If so, then you have a strong dictatorial instinct.

As I explained in the post above, Islam contains a significant political component which is not present in Christianity. These political components are outlined in the original post on this thread. Christianity does not employ the use of social, political, economic, immigration-based etc. forms of warfare with there being a central goal of subduing the entire planet to Islam.

You keep asking why single out a different religion. While all religions are equally false, they are not equally false in the same ways. Islam contains political elements which overtly subjugate all non-Muslims by implementing the Sharia:

1. You can not criticize Qur'an
2. You can not criticize Muhammad
3. You can not criticize Islam

Motion M-103 employs social jihad wherein it empowers Muslim apologists to discredit all discussions (however legitimate) by calling people "Islamophoes" and/or bigots. This is an overt attack of freedom of speech in compliance with Sharia. There is absolutely no such thing that compares in any other monotheistic religion; Islam is inherently aggressive with regards to spreading via all means possible - militarily being the least employed/effective way.

I don't want to ban religion; but we need to understand that Islam is not *only* a religion. Religion applies to people who believe in it. In Islam, over 60% of the Qur'an is dedicated to non-Muslims (unbelievers) and how to systematically subjugate them. This is not religion; this is political and it affects all people who are not Muslims. Accordingly, it is rather depressing to see individuals such as yourself completely unaware and feeling you are taking a moral high ground by protecting the institution of religion. Unfortunately, this is the same liberal mindset that is destroying Canada and the rest of the West.

Regarding "dictatorial" instinct, I suggest you read the life of Muhammad to truly understand what a dictator is. Hitler was a child compared to Muhammad, with Muhammad's teachings now responsible for the death of over 270 000 000 non-Muslims as a result of military jihad "in the cause of Allah". For you to compare me to such for merely attempting to raise awareness of the political (not religious) aspects of Islam suggests to me that you are rather ignorant in this matter.

Freedom of speech, expression, inquiry, assembly, and equality should be protected at all costs in any democratic society. In Islam under Sharia, several forms of expression are banned (including art, music, theater), freedom of speech is non-existent, women are degraded etc. Rather than "banning religion", I would legislate something resembling a hostile foreign agencies act wherein any hostile foreign agency (including political Islam) which attempts to undermine the pillars of democracy will be treated as exactly what they are - hostile entities.

Trudeau's and the current house's capitulation to political Islam (mass immigration, motion M-103, paying Muslims tax-payer dollars via Islamic jizya, calling people Islamophobes etc.) are all aiding and abetting a hostile foreign entity. So rather than you claiming I am "dictatorial", I would actually be trying to protect people's freedoms for their children and children's children from such entities as political Islam. If they want to worship religiously, that's fine, but when political elements of their religion tamper with democracy itself (as is presently the case), a stance should be taken because it is the right thing to do.

Edited January 1, 2018 by 9-18-1

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, 9-18-1 said:

1. Christianity does not employ the use of social, political, economic, immigration-based etc. forms of warfare ...

2. Motion M-103 employs social jihad ...

3. Freedom of speech, expression, inquiry, assembly, and equality should be protected at all costs in any democratic society. In Islam under Sharia, several forms of expression are banned (including art, music, theater), freedom of speech is non-existent, women are degraded etc. Rather than "banning religion", I would legislate something resembling a hostile foreign agencies act wherein any hostile foreign agency (including political Islam) which attempts to undermine the pillars of democracy will be treated as exactly what they are - hostile entities.

1. That's incorrect.  You are spreading falsehoods here.

2. Also incorrect.  These are bills that address social cohesion in a society.  You are spreading a ridiculous falsehood, a conspiracy theory that tries to propagandize and spread hate and disunity.  Your ethos is anti-democratic and anti-western and people aren't buying it, thank goodness.

3. You have already shown your propensity to spread lies, and here it's pretty obvious that you are planning to ban religion.

-----

We don't need anti-democratic dictators such as the ones you would support.  Please stop posting here, your opinions aren't valuable.

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

...We don't need anti-democratic dictators such as the ones you would support.  Please stop posting here, your opinions aren't valuable.

 

I disagree...freedom of speech/expression should be protected in any "democratic" society.

He can post all he wants within forum rules...thank you very much.

[9-18-1]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's incorrect.  You are spreading falsehoods here.

2. Also incorrect.  These are bills that address social cohesion in a society.  You are spreading a ridiculous falsehood, a conspiracy theory that tries to propagandize and spread hate and disunity.  Your ethos is anti-democratic and anti-western and people aren't buying it, thank goodness.

3. You have already shown your propensity to spread lies, and here it's pretty obvious that you are planning to ban religion.

-----

We don't need anti-democratic dictators such as the ones you would support.  Please stop posting here, your opinions aren't valuable.

1. This response has absolutely no substance.

2. Ad hominem demonstrates your inability to discuss the subject matter directly. Moreover, who are you to speak on behalf of others? I grant people the ability to think for themselves, rather than pretending to know (or suggest to naive readers) what they think. Don't insult people like that, it is anti-democratic and anti-western.

3. I have not lied about a single thing, and neither have you produced a single advance in the discussion that does not involve trying to discredit me with accusations, much like a prosecutor discredits a witness in order to nullify their testimony. It's very deceptive and dishonest. Deal with the subject matter itself, if you are capable. Further, I am in no position, neither am I inclined to ban religion.

To the rest: notice how this individual is attempting to shut down the conversation by suggesting my opinions aren't valuable, while simultaneously accusing me of being anti-democratic. The very tactics I point out as threatening democracy (shutting down criticisms of political Islam) are being employed by this individual. It almost makes you wonder, who is really behind that keyboard?

Edited January 1, 2018 by 9-18-1

[9-18-1]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I disagree...freedom of speech/expression should be protected in any "democratic" society.

He can post all he wants within forum rules...thank you very much.

Let the record show that here is an individual who recognizes the importance of open discussion. These are the kinds of people who can keep democracies safe.

Michael Hardner, you could learn much from this, though it is not difficult to see through you. I know who you are and what you are trying to do, but I will keep it to myself.

[Michael Hardner]

23 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

He can post all he wants within forum rules...thank you very much.

Of course he can.  I prefer a truthful forum, though, so I express my desire for him/her to leave.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Of course he can.  I prefer a truthful forum, though, so I express my desire for him/her to leave.

 

Your "truth" is quite subjective...please don't bully other forum members that don't meet your expectations.

Play the ball....same as always.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1. Your "truth" is quite subjective...please don't bully other forum members that don't meet your expectations.

2. Play the ball....same as always.

1. Whining about bullying is a Canadian specialty.  You are drifting closer to the border every year.  Also American intervention doesn't work.

2. I am playing the ball, and what a shitty ball it is.  If we had a coach, the player would be benched, so I am doing my part for the game.

 

[AngusThermopyle]

39 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Whining about bullying is a Canadian specialty.  You are drifting closer to the border every year.  Also American intervention doesn't work.

2. I am playing the ball, and what a shitty ball it is.  If we had a coach, the player would be benched, so I am doing my part for the game.

 

This is just a personal observation but I've noticed that you do try to shut down discussion when you don't like what's being said. Perhaps you don't notice yourself doing so, but it is quite obvious. Sadly I have to disagree with you. I feel the poster should be able to say whatever he wishes. That's just me though, I don't agree with restricting free speech for those I disagree with.

[9-18-1]

20 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

This is just a personal observation but I've noticed that you do try to shut down discussion when you don't like what's being said. Perhaps you don't notice yourself doing so, but it is quite obvious. Sadly I have to disagree with you. I feel the poster should be able to say whatever he wishes. That's just me though, I don't agree with restricting free speech for those I disagree with.

Another great post; freedom of speech is absolutely essential and it is uplifting to see some Canadians still standing for it.

What is equally uplifting is witnessing Canadians who can think for themselves and call out such individuals for employing rhetoric rather than actual discussion. I say let these people continue to out themselves - it is enjoyable to witness people roast themselves. Don't let these kinds of people undermine your fundamental right to express yourself.

In the meantime, from wikipedia:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"^[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argumentative strategy whereby an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Apply to:

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's incorrect.  You are spreading falsehoods here.

2. Also incorrect.  These are bills that address social cohesion in a society.  You are spreading a ridiculous falsehood, a conspiracy theory that tries to propagandize and spread hate and disunity.  Your ethos is anti-democratic and anti-western and people aren't buying it, thank goodness.

3. You have already shown your propensity to spread lies, and here it's pretty obvious that you are planning to ban religion.

-----

We don't need anti-democratic dictators such as the ones you would support.  Please stop posting here, your opinions aren't valuable.

Now let's try to stay on topic from here; thread has become derailed.

[Michael Hardner]

43 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

1. I've noticed that you do try to shut down discussion when you don't like what's being said. Perhaps you don't notice yourself doing so, but it is quite obvious.

2. Sadly I have to disagree with you. I feel the poster should be able to say whatever he wishes. That's just me though, I don't agree with restricting free speech for those I disagree with.

1.  There are lots of posts where I don't like what's being said, but if they're based in fact I can disagree with them.  Posts that are based on fantasy crackpot sources can't be intelligently debated and need to be shut down.  9/11 Truth is another example that comes from left-of-centre if that makes you feel better. If you are afraid to call out posters who enjoy lying, that's your business.  Fake Jihadi hate literature websites are a challenge to our public forums and only victims will stand silent, afraid to criticize bullshit because of 'free speech' issues.  

2. Why is it 'sad' ?  If you think it's 'sad' then maybe you should agree with me.  If course they can say whatever they want, but if you tell them they are full of shit maybe they will leave.   People who are afraid to offend will be the death of us, if we have intelligent discussion crowded out with bullshit posted by online robots.  If you don't 'agree with restricting free speech' then I guess I can come to your house and scream swear words at the top of my lungs all night ?  Good, I'll be right over.

[eyeball]

47 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

This is just a personal observation but I've noticed that you do try to shut down discussion when you don't like what's being said. Perhaps you don't notice yourself doing so, but it is quite obvious. Sadly I have to disagree with you. I feel the poster should be able to say whatever he wishes. That's just me though, I don't agree with restricting free speech for those I disagree with.

When the substance of the argument and topic is a steaming pile of shit why is it so surprising that people go ewwww and wonder if there's something wrong with whoever's playing with it? 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, eyeball said:

When the substance of the argument and topic is a steaming pile of shit why is it so surprising that people go ewwww and wonder if there's something wrong with whoever's playing with it? 

It's freedom of speech, Eyeball !  You have to let that raving lunatic sitting behind you in the movie theatre say whatever they want because freedom.

[Guest]

Everybody gets to say whatever they want.  If one doesn't like it, one can ignore it, argue with it, ridicule it, whatever.

The feminist in the movie theatre loudly complaing about Harvey Weinstein is probably disturbing the peace.  Get management to throw her out for that, and enjoy the movie.

Edited January 1, 2018 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. Everybody gets to say whatever they want.  If one doesn't like it, one can ignore it, argue with it, ridicule it, whatever.

2. The feminist in the movie theatre loudly complaing about Harvey Weinstein is probably disturbing the peace.  Get management to throw her out for that, and enjoy the movie.

1. Right.  And you can tell them to GTFO.  The more sensible people do that with liars, conspiracy crackpots and so on the better.  

2. Yes, and she should shut up or leave.  I'll tell her to go myself, even if I agree with her views.  It has nothing to do with whether I agree with them or not.  It's time & place, and even if it's the right time & place I will tell people who make shit up to get out.

[bush_cheney2004]

26 minutes ago, 9-18-1 said:

....Now let's try to stay on topic from here; thread has become derailed.

 

Agreed...your premise is sound and supported by facts.   Radical Islamists make little distinction between religion and political governance.

For liberal Western democracies, there is a "clash of civilizations".

[9-18-1]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

When the substance of the argument and topic is a steaming pile of shit why is it so surprising that people go ewwww and wonder if there's something wrong with whoever's playing with it? 

Most competent people would counter with something with actual body rather than dismissing it as a "steaming pile of shit". If you disagree with any of the content, state why with your sources and relevant research.

I've been researching the foundations of Islam, foundations of the Qur'an, foundations of Sharia, have linked to several articles, several books, and even a document from the Muslim Brotherhood claiming that their sole purpose is to destroy the West from within. I've outlined the various non-military form of jihad, how they are implemented, and given many examples of how this is occurring all over the West. I've referenced specific injunctions which call on Muslims to engage in jihad. In Britain alone, for example, there are over 80 Sharia courts already established and functioning.

If the crux of your argument is "steaming pile of shit" which I will take the liberty of translating into "I don't have a clue about Islam, Muhammad, Sharia, and this all sounds conspiracy-like, and I don't want to believe it is true, therefor the OP is lying" then you are simply ignorant. I would press any single individual on this forum to bring forward their contentions, backed by substance, and we can discuss from there.

Otherwise, discrediting something on the basis of your own personal ignorance is not only dishonest, but rather dangerous should it turn out that the assertions I have made are indeed accurate (which I am more than willing to defend if someone would simply bring forward an honest contention that does not involve bigotry or rhetoric).