290 or more Dead in the Largest Terrorist Attack Since 9/11

[Robert Greene]

8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That's not right, Robert.  It's mean.  In some cases these women and girls didn't choose to dress this way.  In most cases they are just dressing the way they're accustomed to dress.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  Education and dialogue are key.  I would wonder why someone who chooses to cover herself head to toe would want to be here rather than in a country where such an uncomfortable suppression of identity is celebrated.  The answer I suppose is economic.  This is why there does, unfortunately, have to be some public discussion, including within parliaments, of what kinds of values we as a society want to import.  I don't want to see legal restrictions on dress in public.  I do think that anyone planning to immigrate to Canada who thinks that a religious practice justifies such restrictive dress probably shouldn't be allowed to immigrate.  What are the implications of such beliefs for women's rights and freedom of expression as a whole?  I think negative.  It's why we also must never allow Sharia law in Canada.

You're the diplomat here. You're probably the best person to be sending letters to Ottawa for change. I just want people to get angry, but figure out non-violent ways to take action. I think we should show our disgust to anyone who weirs the veil, because their way of shoving their sadistic Islamic culture down our throats. If we just walk by with a smile. Most of them will think Canada is a safe space to do whatever they want. All wars come with a cost to dignity, you can't win a war without getting tough. You can try honey on the moderates, but honey does not work with the rest of them who want to see Canada converted into a Sharia Country.

Right now we're in a cultural war, and we're not going to win if we bend over backwards, to avoid offending anyone.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[jacee]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Everybody gets to disavow whatever they want.  It doesn't change anything.  The IRA were Irish, The PLO are Palestinians, ISIS are Islamic, the Baader Meinhof gang were lefties, Anders Brehvik was right wing, etc.  No member of any of the aforementioned groups get to say that others are not, just because they do not behave in the fashion they would have them behave.

I'm sorry if it offends you, but bad Muslims are Muslims too.

And Brendon Tarrant is a Christian? 

I don't think Christians are claiming him as one of their own.

I think they are saying that that's not what their religion is about.

[Donnie]

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

No it would not. It is assault plain and simple, and it would accomplish nothing useful at all. 

Yes.  I agree.  I hope things in Canada dont get as bad as they are in Europe with the Islamic grooming and raping of young white girls.  

As long as people can behave and become part of our society, I dont issue with anyone.  The moment some one or some group infringes on citizens rights and freedoms is where I take issue.

Assaulting people is not going to solve any issue I dont think.

[jacee]

2 hours ago, scribblet said:

Yes...    if you watch their videos they admit to doing it in the name of Islam or Allah 

And some terrorists murder in the name of Christianity. Do they represent all Christians? 

[Robert Greene]

3 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

Folks,

Please avoid trolling.

I took down a few posts that were trolling and that were responding to trolling.

It's an emotional issue. I would lean on the side of freedom of speech. This forum is great because people have a chance to vent their frustrations, and not worry about personal attacks. You're going to here some crazy talk, but  that's to be expected. We just have to take it with a grain of salt.

You get detailed debates here, because people have thick skin. If we start taking it personally, this place will fall apart really fast.

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

6 minutes ago, jacee said:

And some terrorists murder in the name of Christianity. Do they represent all Christians? 

I gave you the link to a video to watch. Did you watch the video? It's right on your topic.

[Argus]

The problem is that we neither want to attack people for wearing their silly costumes nor pretend that we think the costumes are just fine and normal. As a society we want to discourage the wearing of such things, particularly in cases like the Islamic ones which are designed to perpetuate the belief that women are immoral and must hide themselves from men lest they cause lust. They're also, as even some Islamic writers have said, a sort of righteous statement of religious militancy and separateness.  We want to discourage it. We just don't want to violate anyone's rights when we do so.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

You're the diplomat here. You're probably the best person to be sending letters to Ottawa for change. I just want people to get angry, but figure out non-violent ways to take action. I think we should show our disgust to anyone who weirs the veil, because their way of shoving their sadistic Islamic culture down our throats. If we just walk by with a smile. Most of them will think Canada is a safe space to do whatever they want. All wars come with a cost to dignity, you can't win a war without getting tough.

Right now we're in a cultural war, and we're not going to win if we bend over backwards, to avoid offending anyone.

 

It's a matter of degrees.  I don't think most people have a problem with head coverings.  We accept kippahs.  We also accept the wearing of religious symbols like crucifixes.  I think that once people are in the country, we even have to live with complete body and face coverings because there probably isn't an argument that would pass the Charter protected freedom of religion with regard to dress in public.  Before the courts and when appearing before public offices for identification/documentation purposes, yes.  However, there is a very legitimate argument that any belief system that requires such a suppressive form of dress as a complete body and face covering for women is not a belief system that Canadian society wishes to import.  Quebec is leading the charge on these issues, mainly because it's a more monocultural society with a large population and more longstanding cultural traditions than most of the rest of Canada.  Even there such questions of reasonable accommodation have been controversial.  I used to be more opposed to such discussions, but I think it's better to tackle such issues openly and honestly rather than avoid them because they make us feel uncomfortable.  We may feel far less comfortable with the long-term consequences of avoiding such discussions.  We're seeing major societal changes unfolding quickly and should respond.

[jacee]

41 minutes ago, Donnie said:

However it's dishonest of you to completely seperate religion from Islamic terrorism as you constantly do

It's the same as separating Christian terrorists from the religion they claim.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, jacee said:

And Brendon Tarrant is a Christian? 

I don't think Christians are claiming him as one of their own.

I think they are saying that that's not what their religion is about.

I don't know who Brendan Tarrant is, but that's beside the point.  The point is, whatever he did, he knows why he did it.  No-one else gets to tell him why he did it.  If he says his Christian beliefs led him to do whatever it was he did, then they did.  End of story.  Other Christians will, of course, differ.  Good job, too, if he did something bad.

We keep coming back to the same point, which is, it doesn't matter how much it bothers you, the motives of others for deplorable actions are what they are.

. 

[Robert Greene]

17 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

No it would not. It is assault plain and simple, and it would accomplish nothing useful at all. 

Spitting on the street isn't assault.

[jacee]

2 hours ago, Goddess said:

The Queen does not wear a headscarf to show her subjugation to men, nor does she do it because she believes religiously that women are second-class citizens who must hide their sexuality in order to not incite men's lust.  She wears it to protect her hairdo on windy days and is free to not wear it, as well.

Smarten up.

It's nobody's business why a woman wears what she wears. 

The assholes who want to go around ripping women's headscarves off are male chauvinist creeps and religious bigots, the same ones who always wanted to tell women what to do.

Edited April 22, 2019 by jacee

[Robert Greene]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It's a matter of degrees.  I don't think most people have a problem with head coverings.  We accept kippahs.  We also accept the wearing of religious symbols like crucifixes.  I think that once people are in the country, we even have to live with complete body and face coverings because there probably isn't an argument that would pass the Charter protected freedom of religion with regard to dress in public.  Before the courts and when appearing before public offices for identification/documentation purposes, yes.  However, there is a very legitimate argument that any belief system that requires such a suppressive form of dress as a complete body and face covering for women is not a belief system that Canadian society wishes to import.  Quebec is leading the charge on these issues, mainly because it's a more monocultural society with a large population and more longstanding cultural traditions than most of the rest of Canada.  Even there such questions of reasonable accommodation have been controversial.  I used to be more opposed to such discussions, but I think it's better to tackle such issues openly and honestly rather than avoid them because they make us feel uncomfortable.  We may feel far less comfortable with the long-term consequences of avoiding such discussions.  We're seeing major societal changes unfolding quickly and should respond.

I just want to bring you slightly more right, but I like your great policy ideas. Maybe you can filter out our extreme reactions, and come up with some pragmatic solutions that would work. I like the fact you avoid emotion, and just break things down into object statements.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

It's nobody's business why a woman wears what she wears. 

So when are you going to watch the video? Google " no such thing as a moderate muslim debunked " Then hit the youtube link.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[jacee]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The Quran orders Muslims to fight the unbeliever until all religion is for Allah.

You can't escape that fact.

So does the Bible.

[Robert Greene]

6 minutes ago, jacee said:

It's nobody's business why a woman wears what she wears. 

Are you from Northern Ontario? Maybe you don't see what goes on in the cities, and are just jumping to conclusions.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[Queenmandy85]

What ever happened to freedom of religion? What ever happened to good conservative values such as it is none of your business what a person wears? There are many common values between Islam and the Roman Catholic church as well as a number of less desirable actions. 

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

It's nobody's business why a woman wears what she wears. 

In a world where women can wear whatever they want to wear without fear of being beaten and killed, that would be true.  That's not the world we live in.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, jacee said:

So does the Bible.

No it doesn't.  Smarten up.

[Robert Greene]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

What ever happened to freedom of religion? What ever happened to good conservative values such as it is none of your business what a person wears? There are many common values between Islam and the Roman Catholic church as well as a number of less desirable actions. 

Islamic not a conventional religion. Islam is a satanic political system. No one should have the freedom to promote Satanism.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[jacee]

46 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

As I've said before, I'm not calling for violence against Muslims, but we need to crackdown on the Islamization of Canada. Figure out non-violent ways to get it done, because we need to get it done.

I would be happy to see a few guys spray paint the clowns in veils, but I'm not calling for it to be an official strategy. 

I would recommend spiting on the street, every time you walk by a B@tch dresses like a ghost in public. Those kind of actions I would support without any hesitation. It would deliver the message, that we're not going to bow down to their B@llchit. If you see one of them walking by, give them a disgusted stare and spit on the ground.

It's time for us to stop the approval of new mosques, and threaten to blockage any mosque that preaches extreme rhetoric.

It's time for us to get tough. If we don't get tough, we can witness hundreds of more suicide bombings.

You think spitting at women makes you "tough"?

[Guest]

Just now, Robert Greene said:

No one should have the freedom to practise Satanism.

Yes they should, as long as they don't affect anyone else.

[Robert Greene]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yes they should, as long as they don't affect anyone else.

But it does affect other people, Millions of women receive female genital mutilation and thousands of terrorist blow up innocent people. Islamic doesn't respect borders and boundaries.

It should no longer receive amnesty under the charter of rights and freedoms.

We can not sanction a satanic ideology.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Robert Greene

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, Robert Greene said:

I just want to bring you slightly more right, but I like your great policy ideas. Maybe you can filter out our extreme reactions, and come up with some pragmatic solutions that would work.

Thanks.  We need practical solutions that will receive a broad consensus, which is why policy must be carefully crafted.  The trick is to have a message that the centre can support that also de-escalates the militant fringes on the left and right.  Not easy.  

[Robert Greene]

5 minutes ago, jacee said:

You think spitting at women makes you "tough"?

Not spitting at them, spitting at the ground beside them. It doesn't make us though, It shows we ain't gonna put up with their chit no more.