Entitled refugees

[Rue]

1 minute ago, Teena said:

No other religion covers the entire body and face. #NotCanadian

Why does Canada even allow this dress? It is also a security risk.

Yes it could be. If it is then the face has to be revealed. That is what our law currently says, i.e., driving, entering a secure place, airport. Why is it allowed. I can only tell you the Charter of Rights says it is a religious right and the Charter is interpreted widely. By the way the religion doesn't say it. Its an individual choice. The religion is silent on it.

The point is this is another thread referring to concerns about Muslims and how they think and practice their religion. If that is the case it belongs in the religion thread. If you are saying it is related to a concern about how we define admissibility to Canada as an immigrant and/or refugee than to do away with this practice, you would have to not have the Charter of Rights section as to freedom of expression/religion interpreted as it is now.

I myself understand your concern. I would not want someone walking around at a swearing in ceremony wearing any face covering myself regardless of their personal beliefs. However how you enunciate that in a law is difficult. There is a not withstanding clause in the Charter that probably push come to shove be used to justify security issues which is why it has never yet been invoked during a security risk situation. Up until now people are asked to show their face privately in security issues. If they are stopped my police driving, they have to show their face.

Push came to shove, it has not yet happened, a witness testifying would have to show their face. Other then that while I appreciate your concern I would hope most of us do Muslim or non Muslim as to this issue.

[Rue]

5 minutes ago, Teena said:

I have learned to keep my distance

I get that Teena. I get that  more than you think. . I am not telling you to do otherwise. I am saying I do it too just not with all  Muslims and not only with Muslims.

[Teena]

25 minutes ago, Rue said:

I get that Teena. I get that  more than you think. . I am not telling you to do otherwise. I am saying I do it too just not with all  Muslims and not only with Muslims.

Thanks Rue. The big difference between you and I .... I'm a woman and your a man. Just saying.

[Argus]

52 minutes ago, Rue said:

If you are saying it is related to a concern about how we define admissibility to Canada as an immigrant and/or refugee than to do away with this practice, you would have to not have the Charter of Rights section as to freedom of expression/religion interpreted as it is now.

The charter or rights does not protect foreigners not in Canada from discrimination by the Canadian government. We are perfectly free to screen applicants for immigration, to interview them, to determine how adaptable they are as well as how firmly they believe in social values and customs which run entirely contrary to ours. And if they are firm in their belief that women are worth one quarter the value of a man, that they must cover their faces/hair, and never touch an unrelated male, then we're perfectly free to say "No thank you."

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Stuff like that only bothers people who hate anyone who isn't exactly like them,

It bothers anyone sensible who cares about the future of this country and does not want to grow an intractable, hostile foreign ethnic/religious group here that will not integrate and rejects our beliefs and values. That is what happened in many European countries and they are just starting to pay the price for it now.

Of course, those who hate Canada, ie, progressives, love the thought of destroying what's left of its traditions and values and flooding it with foreign values and cultures.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Argus

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Rue said:

Your first two comments are contradictory and defective in reasoning. I never claimed  you were afraid to lecture me and all,Jews about what we should fear. I in fact asked  you not to  presume  you can lecture me or any Jew about what we should fear. I said it was patronizing. I now say again you claim to tell Jews how we should think and feel. What you in fact do is project your feelings about Muslims on Jews and tell us we must think like you and I again say this Jew and all Jews do not ask or need you to tell us who hates us and how we should respond to them. Canadian soldiers already have and, thank them.

In regards to 3, you in fact ridicule my comments and again show you prefer telling people in this case Jews how we should feel rather than ask us how we feel.

You are absolute false in your representation that  I have ever stated on this forum hatred or terrorism should be appeased. I support Army Guy on his opinion on how to deal with terrorism.

Next do not presume to tell me what I feel let alone tell me I constantly live in fear of Muslims. The constant fear of Muslims you refer to is your fear which you then try project on me. I am not you. Stop telling me what I feel and ask.

My first two comments aren't contradictory, read them again. And you're the one who said you live in fear, not me, look back at your own post.

You weren't elected king of the jews Rue, you don't speak for all of them. Netanyahu doesn't seem to think that there's nothing to worry about.

And don't say I'm anti-immigrant, I'm anti-stupidity. Brining in so many people from the world's biggest terrorist shithole that they couldn't vet any of them, when al-Baghdadi was telling the  terrorists to mix in with the refugees, was stupid. When Trudeau denied that there was a genocide going on and decided that we didn't need to help the Christians and Yazidis that was stupid. I'm against both of those things. Now we have hate rallies on our streets and we have dozens of returning islamic state terrorists (or fighters, if you believe Ayatollah Trudeau). 

[WestCanMan]

On 1/15/2020 at 8:52 AM, Rue said:

I used to be deathly afraid of myself. Now I have no feelings one way or the other. When you get older your feelings turn to how your prostate or back is doing.

Your words, not mine

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The charter or rights does not protect foreigners not in Canada from discrimination by the Canadian government. We are perfectly free to screen applicants for immigration, to interview them, to determine how adaptable they are as well as how firmly they believe in social values and customs which run entirely contrary to ours. And if they are firm in their belief that women are worth one quarter the value of a man, that they must cover their faces/hair, and never touch an unrelated male, then we're perfectly free to say "No thank you."

 

Not actually true.  Refugees have sued for their Charter Rights and the judiciary have consistently ruled in their favour.

The criteria which the government uses to screen is entirely subject to the Charter.

[Rue]

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

My first two comments aren't contradictory, read them again. And you're the one who said you live in fear, not me, look back at your own post.

You weren't elected king of the jews Rue, you don't speak for all of them. Netanyahu doesn't seem to think that there's nothing to worry about.

And don't say I'm anti-immigrant, I'm anti-stupidity. Brining in so many people from the world's biggest terrorist shithole that they couldn't vet any of them, when al-Baghdadi was telling the  terrorists to mix in with the refugees, was stupid. When Trudeau denied that there was a genocide going on and decided that we didn't need to help the Christians and Yazidis that was stupid. I'm against both of those things. Now we have hate rallies on our streets and we have dozens of returning islamic state terrorists (or fighters, if you believe Ayatollah Trudeau). 

I have never said I am king of anyone. Your being an abusive ass in your responses. Cool it.

  Stop misrepresenting what I said. Provide one statement from Netanyahu who said he hates all Muslims let alone is afraid of them. Now you claim not only to speak for all Jews but Netanyahu.  Netanyahu commanded Muslim soldiers. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Your words, not mine

Yah and you do not read. No where did it say I fear Muslims. Stop shooting off at the mouth and read. I was referring to my own potential to be violent without reason.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

1 hour ago, Teena said:

Thanks Rue. The big difference between you and I .... I'm a woman and your a man. Just saying.

I loath the same crap. Respect to you... you also have extra reasons as a woman to have concern with fundamentalist women haters. I defer to you and Godess or Dialamah on that.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Rue

[WestCanMan]

20 minutes ago, Rue said:

I have never said I am king of anyone. Your being an abusive ass in your responses. Cool it.

 But you already said:

Quote

and I again say this Jew and all Jews do not ask or need you to tell us who hates us and how we should respond to them

So clearly you did speak on behalf of all Jews. 

Quote

  Stop misrepresenting what I said. Provide one statement from Netanyahu who said he hates all Muslims let alone is afraid of them. Now you claim not only to speak for all Jews but Netanyahu.  Netanyahu commanded Muslim soldiers. 

You talk about putting words in people's mouths Rue, yet you call me anti-immigrant and then you quote me as saying "Netanyahu hates all muslims"? WTF? I said Netanyahu one single time before this post so it should be extremely easy for you to show me where I said that he hates all muslims..... Liar. 

What do you think the IDF spends on counter-terrorism per year Rue? Twenty bucks? Two hundred bucks? A million dollars? One hundred million dollars....? Now we're getting somewhere. So tell me....wise one..... if Netanyahu doesn't fear islamic terrorism then why does he spend so much money on counter-terrorism? Is he worried about fellow Jews committing acts of domestic terrorism? What percent of the hundreds of millions of dollars that Netanyahu spends on counter-terrorism is to protect the Israelis from Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Taoists, Wiccans, Zoroastrians, Yazidis, Atheists, and Jews, and what percent is to protect them from one single religion's terrorists Rue? Why do I have to go through metal detectors and throw my water bottle in the garbage when I go through security at the airport Rue? How much money is spent on this planet to protect people from islamic terrorism and how much is spent to protect us from all other terrorist groups combined Rue? I know you won't answer.

Here check this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_June_2016

That's just one month. 187 terrorist attacks globally. How many of them come from that certain 1/4 of the earth's population? Again, you won't answer.

You live in denial. Kudos to you for your ability to stick your head in the sand. That's fine, just don't blame me for the 75 lb turd while you're exonerating the elephant in the room Rue.

[WestCanMan]

50 minutes ago, Rue said:

Yah and you do not read. No where did it say I fear Muslims. Stop shooting off at the mouth and read. I was referring to my own potential to be violent without reason.

What reason could you possibly have to be violent if you don't have anything to worry about? That sounds disturbing Rue.

I have never worried about my potential to be violent without reason. I don't even step on ants or earthworms. (but I confess that I don't go all Buddhist and move earthworms out of the way so that I can dig a hole) 

[Rue]

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

What reason could you possibly have to be violent if you don't have anything to worry about? That sounds disturbing Rue.

I have never worried about my potential to be violent without reason. I don't even step on ants or earthworms. (but I confess that I don't go all Buddhist and move earthworms out of the way so that I can dig a hole) 

Your question and then second sentence make it clear your first question was not a question but in fact a statement  that when read in conjunction with your second sentence tries to turn what I said into a point of subjective personal ridicule in regards to my previously stated reservations about violence and  further  that you do not understand what it means to be asked to kill someone and/or be placed in a position as a result of witnessing violence about how difficult it is to  control the instant reaction to that violence  by becoming violent.

Your third sentence makes it clear that you;

i-felt the need to pose yourself as reasonably violent;  an

ii-lack  the insight to see the inherent contradiction in that contention.

Given the above it also does not surprise me you can't see a co-relation in how negative stereotyping of an entire group of people dehumanizes them and makes it easier to be hateful including violent towards them.

Finally since you chose to turn this into a pissing contest, I leave it to others to ask what is more disturbing:

1-someone who worries about how easy it is to be violent and the negative consequences of becoming violent;

or

2-someone who has no concerns when he is violent because he doesn't step on ants or earthworms.

As for your comment about not going "all Bhuddist"  whatever the phack that means you may wish to consider Bhudda stated:

"Seeing the similarity to oneself, one should not use violence or  have it used."

You may also wish to consider the fact that Ted Kennedy was not a Buddhist but did say:

"Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits."

 

Edward Kennedy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Rue

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Your question and then second sentence make it clear your first question was not a question but in fact a statement  that when read in conjunction with your second sentence tries to turn what I said into a point of subjective personal ridicule in regards to my previously stated reservations about violence and  further  that you do not understand what it means to be asked to kill someone and/or be placed in a position as a result of witnessing violence about how difficult it is to  control the instant reaction to that violence  by becoming violent.

Your third sentence makes it clear that you;

i-felt the need to pose yourself as reasonably violent;  an

ii-lack k the insight to see the inherent contradiction in that contention.

You're the one who said that you feared committing acts of unreasonable violence. Why? 

I literally never feel like I will commit an unreasonable act of violence so I just want a peek into the mind of someone who does, or did.

Quote

Given the above it also does not surprise me you can't see a co-relation in how negative stereotyping of an entire group of people dehumanizes them and makes it easier to be hateful including violent towards them.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The history of violence is the reason for the commentary on the history of violence. I didn't find some random reason to make stuff up. Be a student of history, not a purveyor of bullshit.

Quote

Finally since you chose to turn this into a pissing contest, I leave it to others to ask what is more disturbing:

1-someone who worries about how easy it is to be violent and the negative consequences of becoming violent;

or

2-someone who has no concerns when he is violent because he doesn't step on ants or earthworms.

1) It's not easy to be violent Rue. Never.

2) Who said I was violent? 

Quote

As for your comment about not going "all Bhuddist"  whatever the phack that means you may wish to consider Buddha stated:

"Seeing the similarity to oneself, one should not use violence of  have it used."

You may also wish to consider the fact Ted Kennedy was not a Buddhist but did say:

"Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits."

Then don't use violence. Any more questions?

[Rue]

14 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You're the one who said that you feared committing acts of unreasonable violence. Why? 

I literally never feel like I will commit an unreasonable act of violence so I just want a peek into the mind of someone who does, or did.

You're putting the cart before the horse. The history of violence is the reason for the commentary on the history of violence. I didn't find some random reason to make stuff up. Be a student of history, not a purveyor of bullshit.

1) It's not easy to be violent Rue. Never.

2) Who said I was violent? 

Then don't use violence. Any more questions?

In regards to 1, because I have been in the position where I have witnessed indiscriminate violence and/or been ordered to do things that both made me develop insight there is a fine line between controlled response to contain negative behaviour and indiscriminate violence.

In regards to what you feel, I have no interest in pursuing your claims of always being in  control of your acts or feelings of violence. What I have learned in life is that people who have been quick to tell me they are under control have more often been in a state of denial as to their true feelings. However I do not claim nor am I interested in pursuing with you, your claims of control.

In regards to your third statement it is illogical. The sheer volume of violence world wide as exhibited by humans renders your comment absurd.

In regards to your fourth comment you stated in the previous response I responded to and I quote; " I have never worried about my potential to be violent without reason". It is from that statement I inferred you claim to be a man of reasonable violence and capable of expressing reasonable violence. If you were not claiming to be violent and claim never to have been violent or acted violent or feel violent, then I live that claim to you and tell you that you would be the first human I ever heard from who claims he has no violence in him and yes I have a problem with such a contention. Then again maybe you were in Hari Krishna and it worked for you. I leave that for you.

Further, I had no questions for you, you in  fact raised the question in your previous response which I responded to.

I have nothing to question you on. If you were in Hari Krishna or have entered a stage of enlightenment where you have reached a state of non violence I have no need to question it thank you.  I didn't before, I do not  now.

Next, on this thread,  you made your position on Muslims clear and I disagree with your position. You made your position clear on this and many other threads as to where you stand on immigration policies, refugee policies and Muslims and I need no clarification of them through questioning and  I have challenged them for the reasons I stated.

I do not believe any government policy to be effective should be based on fear mongering or assumptions of negative generalization of anyone as an individual or as a member of a social group. I have also previously argued  I contend as do others that government policies, initiatives and laws should be based on objective standards and criteria that are fair and balanced.

I also stated the fact that there are Muslim terrorists, Muslim anti-semites, does not and should not give you the right let alone presumption to lecture me or any Jew on our history and tell us what we must think of Muslims. When I stated that I spoke for myself. I also explained that nowhere in my religion does it say I should  hate or assume an entire people is evil because some or many of them may be.

My religion  teaches the exact opposite so to tell me what anti-semitism is let alone how I as a Jew should react to Muslims does not make me King of the Jews, it makes me a poster telling you that I challenge your opinions and ask  you to NOT assume or presume to tell me  as a Jew or speak on behalf of other Jews or  Netanyahu as to what they think of Muslims unless they tell you to or you quote from them directly without removing what they said from its actual context.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Rue

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

In regards to 1, because I have been in the position where I have witnessed indiscriminate violence and/or been ordered to do things that both made me develop insight there is a fine line between controlled response to contain negative behaviour and indiscriminate violence.

In regards to what you feel, I have no interest in pursuing your claims of always being in  control of your acts or feelings of violence. What I have learned in life is that people who have been quick to tell me they are under control have more often been in a state of denial as to their true feelings. However I do not claim nor am I interested in pursuing with you, your claims of control.

In regards to your third statement it is illogical. The sheer volume of violence world wide as exhibited by humans renders your comment absurd.

In regards to your fourth comment you stated in the previous response I responded to and I quote; " I have never worried about my potential to be violent without reason". It is from that statement I inferred you claim to be a man of reasonable violence and capable of expressing reasonable violence. If you were not claiming to be violent and claim never to have been violent or acted violent or feel violent, then I live that claim to you and tell you that you would be the first human I ever heard from who claims he has no violence in him and yes I have a problem with such a contention. Then again maybe you were in Hari Krishna and it worked for you. I leave that for you.

Further, I had no questions for you, you in  fact raised the question in your previous response which I responded to.

I have nothing to question you on. If you were in Hari Krishna or have entered a stage of enlightenment where you have reached a state of non violence I have no need to question it thank you.  I didn't before, I do not  now.

Next, on this thread,  you made your position on Muslims clear and I disagree with your position. You made your position clear on this and many other threads as to where you stand on immigration policies, refugee policies and Muslims and I need no clarification of them through questioning and  I have challenged them for the reasons I stated.

I do not believe any government policy to be effective should be based on fear mongering or assumptions of negative generalization of anyone as an individual or as a member of a social group. I have also previously argued  I contend as do others that government policies, initiatives and laws should be based on objective standards and criteria that are fair and balanced.

I also stated the fact that there are Muslim terrorists, Muslim anti-semites, does not and should not give you the right let alone presumption to lecture me or any Jew on our history and tell us what we must think of Muslims. When I stated that I spoke for myself. I also explained that nowhere in my religion does it say I should  hate or assume an entire people is evil because some or many of them may be.

My religion  teaches the exact opposite so to tell me what anti-semitism is let alone how I as a Jew should react to Muslims does not make me King of the Jews, it makes me a poster telling you that I challenge your opinions and ask  you to NOT assume or presume to tell me  as a Jew or speak on behalf of other Jews or  Netanyahu as to what they think of Muslims unless they tell you to or you quote from them directly without removing what they said from its actual context.

 

Your reply is very politically correct, but if you're being truly honest, you're just an expert at ignoring the elephant in the room.

There are over 100 terrorist attacks on the planet, month after month, and 99% of them come from 1/4 of the earth's population. You can consider that to come from pure randomness if you want, but people who can do simple math can use that info to make predictions about next month and the month after that. You stick to your religion and your strict moral compass to try to predict the future and I'll use math, thanks.  

FYI I'm well aware of my threshold for violence and I've never come close to being charged for any kind of assault, I don't care what you want to surmise from my posts. I tell the truth, it's usually uncomfortable for people in the post-truth age, so what? Trudeau still hasn't found a way to criminalize it, try though he may.

[Rue]

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Your reply is very politically correct, but if you're being truly honest, you're just an expert at ignoring the elephant in the room.

There are over 100 terrorist attacks on the planet, month after month, and 99% of them come from 1/4 of the earth's population. You can consider that to come from pure randomness if you want, but people who can do simple math can use that info to make predictions about next month and the month after that. You stick to your religion and your strict moral compass to try to predict the future and I'll use math, thanks.  

FYI I'm well aware of my threshold for violence and I've never come close to being charged for any kind of assault, I don't care what you want to surmise from my posts. I tell the truth, it's usually uncomfortable for people in the post-truth age, so what? Trudeau still hasn't found a way to criminalize it, try though he may.

Get real Wes. Nothing I have said is politically correct or incorrect. You want to interpret it that way because you disagree with it, period.  I do notice though now that you mention political correctness you stated and I quote: " 99% of them (terrorist attacks) come from 1.4 of the earth's population rather than say what you meant, Muslims.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims, which is estimated to be 23% of the world's population which is where I am assuming you get your 1/4 estimate from. I got that. What I do not get is where you pulled the 99% figure from. Please share.

What you also did not explain is  what percentage of those 1.6 billion Muslims  carried out the terror attacks because to come up with a pattern of how likely a Muslim will commit terror one needs to extrapolate the exact no. of Muslim attacks by Muslims who performed those attacks and then compare their amount to the total amount of all Muslims to then be able to extrapolate a number that predicts the likelihood of any Muslim committing a terror attack. You did not do that. Your assumption also does not properly taken into account the KIND of Muslim that engages in the terror act and who is attacked. You make no distinction between Sunni, Ismaili, Shufi, Ahmedya, Shiite, etc.  and just assume all Muslims are the same and you ignore the fact that most Muslim terror attacks are directed at other Muslims not non Muslims.  The last time I looked zero Amidyah and Ismaili Muslims had committed any terror attack, so why do you assume because they are Muslim they are more likely to engage in terrorism? That makes no mathematical or logical sense.

If Muslims are more likely to be violent people because Muslims are  more likely to be terrorists then provide numbers and your method of extrapolation. That is all I have asked and you continue to make up numbers with no source or basis and make conclusions as to patterns of risk with no extrapolation process. That is why I challenge it.. because  I argue it makes no logical sense.. and  in fact  suggest you might want to ask an actuary how to properly extrapolate risk from preceding actions because that is what I am arguing. I am arguing  predicting risk is a lot more complex then what you or I might  assume and so  I challenge you its not based on political correctness but on lack of objective formulization.

While we are at it, do you have any figures as to how many Muslim refugees or immigrants in Canada have committed terror attacks in Canada or overseas? Have you correlated their rates to the entire Muslim population of the world to get a proper extrapolation of a Muslim's likelihood to kill non Muslim Canadians? Have you broken those Muslims down into more accurate categories so as not to assume all Muslims are the same, i.e., that Ismailis, Amidyah, Shiite, Sunni, etc. are different?  Please....share the numbers.

Here is what I have also considered and that is your 99% figure may not necessarily be accurate. Some would argue that  since September 11, Islamist groups have conducted about 20% of terrorist attacks worldwide and so  terrorist attacks are less likely to be conducted by a Muslim than by a non-Muslim group. (source: http://theconversation.com/looking-at-terror-attacks-per-capita-should-make-us-rethink-beliefs-about-levels-of-risk-and-muslims-78449)

I  also found one site that says and I quote:: 

"Fact: There are only about a total estimated 100,000 militant extremist Muslims in the world. That is less than 0.01% of the global Muslim population of 1.7 billion people. “The vast majority of the estimated 85,000 to 106,000 militants fighting with militant jihadist groups around the world are fighting for purely local reasons, for instance, trying to install Sharia law in northern Nigeria or trying to impose Taliban rule on Pakistan and Afghanistan, while only a small number of these militants are focused on attacking the West.”
Source: P. Bergen, National Security Analyst and E. Schneider, Research Associate:  http://us.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/index.html"

and:

Fact: Most terror attacks in the Western world (Europe, USA) are committed by non-Muslims, yet terrorist attacks by Muslims receive 449% MORE MEDIA COVERAGE than other attacks from 2011-2015. This is per the findings of an academic study from Georgia State University quoted below:

“We examined news coverage from LexisNexis Academic and CNN.com for all terrorist attacks in the United States between 2011 and 2015.  Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 449% more coverage than other attacks. Given the disproportionate quantity of news coverage for these attacks, it is no wonder that people are afraid of the Muslim terrorist. More representative media coverage could help to bring public perception of terrorism in line with reality.”
Source: Kearns, Erin M. and Betus, Allison and Lemieux, Anthony, Why Do Some Terrorist Attacks Receive More Media Attention Than Others? (March 5, 2017). Available at SSRN:  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928138

 

I also have argued I think your conclusions ignore good Muslims. I think your conclusions ignore moderate Muslims who are against extremism and terrorism and could positively contribute to Canada. I argue  your conclusions and  generalized negative assumptions about all Muslims  wrongfully stereotypes law abiding, good, hard working, anti terrorist, peaceful Muslims. How is that politically correct to say that? What makes you think the only reason I challenge your assumptions are because of political correctness. Lol. I am one of the biggest smell faces on this forum when it comes to correctness.

No one who argues as I do has ever stated there are no Muslim terrorists or no Muslim shmucks. I have been the first to say we need to be realistic on how we deal with extremist terrorists.

Never have I justified terrorism or shmucks on this forum so stop stereotyping me. You know better and no I do not and have never said you are a violent Muslim hater. I am simply debating the issues. The difference between us is I want to take the  time  to differentiate good from bad Muslims because its the fair thing to do.  I treat people the way I want to be treated. Its that simple.  I do not assume the generalizations you do about them precisely because people have done that to me about my Jewish identity and I know how unfair it is. That is all.

I am no King of any Jews. I was shot at  and spit at and had rocks thrown at me by Muslims, I cleaned the aftermath up after Muslim terrorism and I learned because of that-that when people are shot and die and blow up, as I witnessed , they dead  were both Muslim and Jewish and they blew up the exact same way and looked no different once they awere burning flesh.

So I will be damned if you ask me to assume the flesh I put in plastic bags should not be properly acknowledged The people in those bags Muslim or Jewish suffered equally from bad Muslims. I also saw bullshit extremist behavior from certain Jews and I never condoned what they did and will not allow anyone to stereotype me as being the same as them either.

I have been spit at by both extremist Muslims and Jews because of the uniform I wore  I was no King. I dug toilets and cleaned toilets and feet and cleaned roads and pulled worms out of toes. What you see as Muslim or Jewish shit I only see as shit because from my perspective its all it was, shit.

I am not arguing all Muslims or for that matter Jews or anyone else is  innocent or never had a shit. Give me a break. I know what I cleaned thank you. What I am arguing  is not all Muslims and everyone else should be assumed to be full of shit simply because they were born with a propensity to be assholes. I argue if you do that you become no different than terrorists in your reasoning and they have the last laugh because your incorrect assumptions may however unintentional alienate the very people  you want to win over to help you fight the terrorists. I argue what you are doing makes it easier for terrorists to recruit the very people we need to form an alliance with to fight the terrorists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, Rue said:

Reduce the volume of your quotes.  Please review the following threads: 

Using the [ Quote ] Feature: - 2005

NEW RULE! - Trim Your Posts - 2006

Trim Your Posts and Quotes - 2006

If your reply takes less space than your quote does, then you quoted too much. 

Go to google, type in “number of terrorist attacks in [pick a month and year]” and look at the list of attacks that comes up. See how many were Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Wiccans, Jews, etc. Do the math. 
 

I know that doesn’t mean all muslims are terrorists, but it shows that almost all terrorists are muslims. We shouldn’t be racing to bring in as many as we can from the countries with the highest terrorism rates, and countries where religious bigotry is enforced by the government. 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Charles Anthony
excessive quoting

[Moonlight Graham]

On 1/16/2020 at 4:14 PM, Dougie93 said:

Not actually true.  Refugees have sued for their Charter Rights and the judiciary have consistently ruled in their favour.

The criteria which the government uses to screen is entirely subject to the Charter.

Muslims coming into this country is not a big problem.  Stupid, unskilled people being allowed to stay in this country are.  They're the ones who live in community housing , live off welfare, who cause crime, raise kids who get knocked up as a teen etc.  Being stupid and unskilled is not protected by the Charter fortunately.  Keep out the riff-raff.

[Yzermandius19]

19 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Muslims coming into this country is not a big problem.  Stupid, unskilled people being allowed to stay in this country are.  They're the ones who live in community housing , live off welfare, who cause crime, raise kids who get knocked up as a teen etc.  Being stupid and unskilled is not protected by the Charter fortunately.  Keep out the riff-raff.

So why aren't you suggesting kicking out the riff-raff born in the country as well, seeing as being stupid and unskilled is not protected by the Charter? Why are you only applying your logic to the foreign born while claiming it's about being stupid and unskilled?

Edited January 18, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Rue]

6 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

So why aren't you suggesting kicking out the riff-raff born in the country as well, seeing as being stupid and unskilled is not protected by the Charter? Why are you only applying your logic to the foreign born while claiming it's about being stupid and unskilled?

Geez if you did that we would have no one to run our governments or get elected. Sorry  I could not resist.

Oh man what a topic. It aint easy to discuss. I don't really disagree that much with Wes except on how we define the problem we  both agree exists.

I am  going where you and Moonlight are going on this...how do we define quality Canadians if I can use that word? How does anyone make an immigration policy or regulation that attracts or brings in such quality people and what criteria would we use and why? 

 

 

[Rue]

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Go to google, type in “number of terrorist attacks in [pick a month and year]” and look at the list of attacks that comes up. See how many were Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Wiccans, Jews, etc. Do the math. 
 

I know that doesn’t mean all muslims are terrorists, but it shows that almost all terrorists are muslims. We shouldn’t be racing to bring in as many as we can from the countries with the highest terrorism rates, and countries where religious bigotry is enforced by the government. 

Here I think this is the best way to answer the above and it is an excerpt from: https://www.csis.org/analysis/islam-and-patterns-terrorism-and-violent-extremism

"It is far too easy for analysts who are not Muslim to focus on the small part of the extremist threat that Muslim extremists pose to non-Muslims in the West and/or demonize one of the world's great religions, and to drift into some form of Islamophobia—blaming a faith for patterns of violence that are driven by a tiny fraction of the world's Muslims and by many other factors like population, failed governance, and weak economic development.

It is equally easy to avoid analyzing the links between extremist violence and Islam in order to be politically correct or to avoid provoking Muslims and the governments of largely Muslim states. The end result is to ignore the reality that most extremist and terrorist violence does occur in largely Muslim states, although it overwhelmingly consists of attacks by Muslim extremists on fellow Muslims, and not some clash between civilizations.

If one examines a wide range of sources, however, a number of key patterns emerge that make five things very clear:

First, the overwhelming majority of extremist and violent terrorist incidents do occur in largely Muslim states.

Second, most of these incidents are perpetrated by a small minority of Muslims seeking power primarily in their own areas of operation and whose primary victims are fellow Muslims.

Third, almost all of the governments of the countries involved are actively fighting extremism and terrorism, and most are allies of Western states that work closely with the security, military, and counter terrorism forces of non-Muslim states to fight extremism and terrorism.

Fourth, the vast majority of Muslims oppose violent extremism and terrorism, and,

Fifth, religion is only one of many factors that lead to instability and violence in largely Muslim states. It is a critical ideological force in shaping the current patterns of extremism, but it does not represent the core values of Islam and many other far more material factors help lead to the rise of extremism."

Edited January 18, 2020 by Rue

[Rue]

Here is other info for your interest on this topic:

"We believe that the mass of information gathered sheds new light on the phenomenon of Islamist violence. It makes it possible to better describe it, to better understand it, to document its severity. Thus, by way of illustration, we can establish that between 1979 and 2019, at least 33,769 Islamist terrorist attacks took place worldwide. They caused the deaths of at least 167,096 people. We can also say that Islamist terrorist attacks account for 18.8% of all attacks worldwide, but that they are responsible for 39.1% of the lives lost due to terrorism; or that, during the years studied, there has been an intensification of this violence and that the deadliest period is the most recent: from 2013 onwards, in our opinion, Islam has become the main cause (63.4%) of deaths due to terrorism in the world. We identify and quantify operating methods and targets. The vision of the phenomenon improves, the image becomes clearer. In this way, we show that the majority of the victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims (91.2%)."

source: http://www.fondapol.org/en/etudes-en/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2019/

The above  info many would use as a reason to hold the views Wes does. I get that.  Where I ask for further debate is on the conclusion above that says "Islam has become the main cause of deaths due to terrorism in the world".  Interestingly the above author used the term "Islamist"  when describing the terror  attacks but then later went on to say  "Islam"  became the main cause of deaths, not "Islamism" or "Islamists"  or "Islamic extremist views"  were the main motivator of deaths due to terrorism world wide.  

It shows the author like most of us non Muslims interchange the word Islam with types of Islamic beliefs that are used to justify terror attacks as if they are one and the same. But are they and does it matter to distinguish the two?

Here is the issue I now raise restated at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/when-a-phrase-takes-on-new-meaning-radical-islam-explained.html

"Let’s start with the words. “Islam” is a 1,500-year-old religion whose 1.6 billion followers worldwide observe a spectrum of customs and traditions. “Radical” can mean something very different or against tradition, or be defined as extreme views, practices and policies.

The words, absent political context, could be read as trying to distinguish fringe interpretations of Islam, including justifications for violence, from the mainstream majority view, which is peaceful. But that context — including who shouts the phrase and who studiously avoids uttering it — has ladened it with pernicious meaning in particular quarters."

Then we get into the response Wes and others will give me as to the above that says: (source: https://areomagazine.com/2017/04/25/islam-vs-islamism-why-the-distinction-still-matters/

"Much has been said regarding the terms Islam and Islamism. Some argue the distinction is an artificial one, imposed by the politically correct Left. Others stress it is essential to distinguish between the religion and its violent imposition so that Muslims are not indiscriminately condemned with a broad brush. "

 

and this is why the above article went on to say: 

"To rely on the simplistic assumption that people are guided exclusively by “holy” texts, on the other hand, is to ignore the multi-faceted nature of our modern problem with Islamic extremism. It’s also a bit like saying video games are what make people kill — it seeks an easy scapegoat. While not denying the role religion plays in terrorism, we must be aware that there are other factors at play that make the distinction between Islam and Islamism especially important."

This is also why not just myself but the Jewish community contrary to what Wes or others may think do not necessarily fear Muslims. Consider these comments from the Anti-Defamation League, ( https://www.adl.org/education/resources/tools-and-strategies/myths-and-facts-about-muslim-people-and-islam) an organization we created to combat anti-semitism but we also use to help us combat  discrimination against non Jews, including Christians and Muslims:

" Within every religion, there exists a spectrum of attitudes and behavior and extremism is not unique to one particular belief system. There are people who sincerely view themselves as Muslims who have committed horrible acts in the name of Islam. These people, and their interpretation of Islam, is rightly called “extremist;” they are a minority within Islam and the vast majority of Muslims reject their violence and consider their interpretation a distortion of the Muslim faith. Extremism is not unique to Islam. ...

It is important to keep in mind that Islam, like other Abrahamic religions, includes a large pool of opinions and different ways to understand the traditional holy text that was written in a different era. Terrorists use radical interpretations of Islam, which take a small number of texts that were meant to regulate warfare in the early days of Islam. Terrorists then apply these interpretations to contemporary times."

This is why I and others argue the problems or fears Wes and others are referring to come from Islamism not Islam, that is to say: (source:http://www.danielpipes.org/954/distinguishing-between-islam-and-islamism) 

"Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology....

Islamism is, in other words, yet another twentieth-century radical utopian scheme. Like Marxism-Leninism or fascism, it offers a way to control the state, run society, and remake the human being. It is an Islamic-flavored version of totalitarianism...

In this, Islamism is a huge change from traditional Islam. One illustration: Whereas traditional Islam's sacred law is a personal law, a law a Muslim must follow wherever he is, Islamism tries to apply a Western-style geographic law that depends on where one lives. Take the case of Sudan, where traditionally a Christian was perfectly entitled to drink alcohol, for he is a Christian, and Islamic law applies only to Muslims. But the current regime has banned alcohol for every Sudanese. It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run."

With the above in mind, if you take the time to distinguish the two, then I and others argue, when you go next to try implement policies dealing with people you think are dangerous to Canada, i.e., radical Islamists, you do not confuse them with other Muslims who are equally as victimized and hated by radical Islamists and more importantly understand, an actual follower of Islam not radical islamism, would not impose his beliefs on you, they are his or her personal code of behaviour and Muslims like we Christians, Jews, Hindus, have different views as to how strict or fundamental or orthodox they are when practicing Islam. There is no one centralized thought in Islam. Each Mullah or Imam has their own interpretation and people practice it in a wide variety of ways and so for people like me who have lived with Muslims more so than most Canadians and also have witnessed terrorism or lived with it unlike most Canadians, I have a different perspective that had to come up with a more complex way of understanding who  might kill or not kill me and it sure as hell could not simply assume all Muslims are going to kill me otherwise I could have never walked a street ever in Israel.

If we construct policies that properly identify what it is we think we fear and rationally examine those fears then I and others argue, your policy or approach to what you perceive as a threat changes dramatically if for no other reason it now switches to rational response, not subjective reflex response.

This then leads me to argue instead of blanketly prohibiting anyone from being an immigrant or refugee because you think they are a Muslim or for that matter terrorist:

• make a point to differentiate Islamists and Islamism from Muslims in discussions of challenging using Islam to rationalize terror;
• form alliances with Muslims to challenge and contain Islamists or any other violent totalitarian extremists to reduce their aggressiveness towards all of us
• do not be afraid of all Muslims particularly those who came to Canada to flee Islamists and reject their views
• do not assume those of us who are not anti Muslim are pro Islamist or label is with any other simplistic stereotypes such as being politically correct or trendy leftist, in fact trendy leftists are more likely to support Islamists 
• the refugee definition in Canada needs a re-visit for many reasons but not simply because we allow Muslims to be refugees
• our immigration policies contrary to popular belief try to recruit immigrants who match needs we need filled in Canada but can't find in Canadians-contrary to popular belief most immigrants can not and will not take jobs away from Canadians, they take jobs no Canadians will
• immigration policies have a point system looking for qualifications based on objective criteria
• the deficit Canada has incurred will require people to pay taxes and increasing taxes into the system to pay not only that deficit but keep our public systems functioning -our current population base can not produce sufficient numbers of people to pay those taxes so we have no choice but to bring in new workers
• when defining Canadian values, define what they are, not what they are NOT otherwise you have NOT defined Canadian values and the confusion as to what our values are remains as we continue to be  unable to say what they are
• policies must be based on objective criteria not subjective feelings or assumptions
• police and security checks on anyone coming to Canada can not be based on someone's physical appearance but on carefully defined criteria designed to detect possible security risks, i.e., it must be based on forensic criteria not negative stereotypes of what people believe, wear or eat.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Rue

[eyeball]

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Your reply is very politically correct, but if you're being truly honest, you're just an expert at ignoring the elephant in the room.

There are over 100 terrorist attacks on the planet, month after month, and 99% of them come from 1/4 of the earth's population. You can consider that to come from pure randomness if you want

So 1/4 of the Earth's population just randomly decided one day to attack the planet right out of the blue with no rhyme or reason why.

Yes I'd say there's definitely an elephant in the room but did you notice there's also a donkey?