Entitled refugees

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You can tell how evil people are by what kinds of things they (eyeball) can justify.

You can also tell how stupid partisan Islamophobia can makes someone by the way they deal with a joke.

But seriously, I wouldn't wish any worse a fate on you than DOP imagines I wished on him. He made it sound like I issued a fatwa and ordered a hit on him.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

I've been watching historical documentaries of late.  Europeans have been aggressively waging war for centuries, only apparently giving it up in the last century or so.  There was often no provocation for these wars, other than imposing some form of Christianity throughout Europe and later, to gain territory and impose Christianity on any "barbarians" they ran across.  

Wasn't Christians that invaded the Muslim world, but the reverse. Most wars in Europe or by Europeans were about money and power, not religion.

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

So tell me, exactly how many US, Western allied troops haven't been somewhere in the Middle East over the last 60 years.  

You continue to put the horse in front of the cart. The US, and you're mainly talking about them, don't send troops somewhere to conquer and steal but to settle violence already in place. If the Iraqis had never invaded Kuwait and the Afghanis hadn't harbored terrorists that attacked America there'd have been way fewer US troops there. If the Iraqis hadn't been completely incompetent the US and other western countries would not have had to come back to defeat ISIS.

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

Wasn't Christians that invaded the Muslim world, but the reverse. Most wars in Europe or by Europeans were about money and power, not religion.

Just how far back in time do you think the peace, truth and reconciliation process that will one day be tasked with addressing Muslim and Western grievances with one another actually go?

Quote

You continue to put the horse in front of the cart. The US, and you're mainly talking about them, don't send troops somewhere to conquer and steal but to settle violence already in place.

And you continue to shovel horseshit references to the Dark Ages out the back of that same cart.

Quote

The US, and you're mainly talking about them, don't send troops somewhere to conquer and steal but to settle violence already in place.

That's a pretty rosy assessment. How about when the US overthrew a democracy and flush with its 'success' set about vandalizing and destabilizing the rest of the region with its puppet dictators and warlords?  You think a peace commission might spend a bit of time considering that or just dive headlong into the horseshit?

[Moonlight Graham]

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

Wasn't Christians that invaded the Muslim world, but the reverse. Most wars in Europe or by Europeans were about money and power, not religion.

Europeans did a massive amount of spreading Christianity by gunpoint, especially via colonialism.  But you're right, it was mostly for gold, not god.

Colonialism was fundamentally a competition over resources/land.   Foreign presence in the middle east is competition over oil resource control.

22 minutes ago, Argus said:

You continue to put the horse in front of the cart. The US, and you're mainly talking about them, don't send troops somewhere to conquer and steal but to settle violence already in place. If the Iraqis had never invaded Kuwait and the Afghanis hadn't harbored terrorists that attacked America there'd have been way fewer US troops there. If the Iraqis hadn't been completely incompetent the US and other western countries would not have had to come back to defeat ISIS.

The US and West are in the middle east because of oil, in bed with or fighting with crazy religious regimes. They've tried to control it for over a century since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and whatnot.  Arab/Persian Muslims don't take it up the butt, not even from their own crooked regimes, i admire them for that.  The US usually doesn't conquer and steal there, they just prop up proxies that further their interests & eliminate ones that don't.

People try to moralize it, but it's about politics and self-preservation just like European colonialism was.  The competitive anarchic design of the international system makes these things inevitable, unfortunately.  Resources are up for grabs, every man for themselves.  Countries don't share, they're all forced to compete.

[Moonlight Graham]

31 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Just how far back in time do you think the peace, truth and reconciliation process that will one day be tasked with addressing Muslim and Western grievances with one another actually go?

Doubtful Americans and Muslims are ever going to be interested in truth and reconciliation.  Peace will happen when oil is no longer in high demand and the US leaves the region.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Doubtful Americans and Muslims are ever going to be interested in truth and reconciliation.  Peace will happen when oil is no longer in high demand and the US leaves the region.

Probably just bout the time there'll be millions upon millions of refugees leaving the region too.

I suspect the peace will be pretty bleak.

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

But you're right, it was mostly for gold, not god

Europeans spent something like 300 years fighting over whether Europe would be Catholic or Protestant.  Other factors were at play, but imposing religion was a pretty important aspect of these wars.  Also, the Crusades were all about making sure the Euopeans religion of choice was imposed on people in the Middle East, regardless of their preferences.  Territory/gold may have been the goal of kings and generals, but the people were there for God.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Europeans spent something like 300 years fighting over whether Europe would be Catholic or Protestant.  Other factors were at play, but imposing religion was a pretty important aspect of these wars.  Also, the Crusades were all about making sure the Euopeans religion of choice was imposed on people in the Middle East, regardless of their preferences.  Territory/gold may have been the goal of kings and generals, but the people were there for God.

I'm talking about European colonialism of the rest of the world.  They spread Christianity as they conquered "the heathens", but their main mission was to grab resources and land before their neighbours did.  If they didn't, their neighbours could become more rich & powerful and potentially invade and destroy/conquer them.

But you're right in that they did fight religious wars and aren't much if any better than the Muslims.

[DogOnPorch]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Europeans spent something like 300 years fighting over whether Europe would be Catholic or Protestant. 

 

Thirty...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

You can also tell how stupid partisan Islamophobia can makes someone by the way they deal with a joke.

But seriously, I wouldn't wish any worse a fate on you than DOP imagines I wished on him. He made it sound like I issued a fatwa and ordered a hit on him.

Honestly eyeball you either have no clue or you lie about any topic that you touch on, and your "joke" is predicated on falsehoods so it's not really a joke. 

What you call 'islamophobia' is actually just a logical conclusion based on over a thousand years of history and the deplorable shithole conditions that currently exist in every single country that's dominated by islam. Those conditions existed before Trump, they existed before 1492, they existed before the crusades (they were the cause of the crusades), and they exist between Islam and Hinduism (even moreso than Christianity), they exist between Islam and Sikhism, they exist between Islam and Buddhism, they exist between Islam and homosexuality, etc. 

Individuals who loosely identify as muslims can rise above these issues, just like you can be an American an not be a Green Beret commando, but terrorism and xenophobia are an extremely integral part of islamic culture. The feigned inclusivity at the edge of islamic visitors is window dressing, the core of islam is brutal and oppressive. Go to an islamic country and act gay if you don't believe me. Wear a small cross around your neck, visible to the public. You'll definitely meet some nice people who'll give you good advice, but you won't be safe and the police/government won't participate in keeping you safe. You can't be a gay activist over there and wear pink hair, but it's safe for women to speak in favour of islam here with burkas on. Go figger. We just are a better society than they are, as far as people with actual liberal values are concerned.

If you think I'm wrong then take on my statements head-on. Try to find fault somewhere. My prediction is that you will ignore what you can't disprove (which is everything) and come back with some Trudeaupian ad-hominem attacks. And that's based on hundreds of your posts, so I can tell you in advance that my prediction will be correct. 

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, dialamah said:

Europeans spent something like 300 years fighting over whether Europe would be Catholic or Protestant.  

The whole point is that Christianity progressed. It's a much better brand now than it was 1,000 years ago.

How awesome of a place to live in is Iran, or Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia ,or Pakistan right now? Honestly dialamah, do some deep soul searching and answer that question. If that's the evolution of Islam then can you really say with any honesty that it's a force for goodness, understanding and inclusivity? Are those things a part of islam at all?

Why is it that in a place like the Phillipines that the muslims there need to have their own islands where only islam is allowed? They've been terrorists there since before WWII. Why can't they just live there in peace with their neighbours? Why do they need their own apartment building in Toronto which can't be touched by non-muslims?

My bold prediction: you have zero answers and you'll ignore all evidence that's contrary to your iron-clad beliefs. Cognitive dissonance is intra-cranial blasphemy ( I just coined that term, it's awesome). 

Edited January 19, 2020 by WestCanMan

[dialamah]

42 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The whole point is that Christianity progressed. It's a much better brand now than it was 1,000 years ago.

Christianity has only "progressed" in the last 100 years or so.  In Canada, the Catholic Church was still (often violently) imposing its beliefs, with government support, on indigenuous children until at least 1960 - "for their own good".  Some Christian sects around the world still impose Christianity by the sword (or machine gun, as the case may be). 

Until the 80s, it was legal in Canada to rape your wife because Christianity held that a woman owed her husband sex.   

In 1960 in Canada, a woman had to get her husband's permission for birth control - and to open a bank account - because women are subject to men in Christianity.  

An American woman could not hold property in her own name until 1900, and it was legal to beat your wife until 1920.   

Gay people in Canada were still being arrested in the 70s, and still being beaten and sometimes killed in the 80s- because Christianity disapproved of gay people.  

And yes, Western society has progressed, but its been in spite of Christianity, not because of it.  Every step towards equal rights for women, gays, indigenous people, Christianity fought hard against**.   Islamic countries may be "behind" Western countries  but they're not that far behind - maybe 50 years, maybe less.

**This doesn't mean every Christian, btw; many Christian people also supported equal rights.

Edited January 19, 2020 by dialamah

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Christianity has only "progressed" in the last 100 years or so.  In Canada, the Catholic Church was still (often violently) imposing its beliefs, with government support, on indigenuous children until at least 1960 - "for their own good".  Some Christian sects around the world still impose Christianity by the sword (or machine gun, as the case may be). 

Until the 80s, it was legal in Canada to rape your wife because Christianity held that a woman owed her husband sex.   

In 1960 in Canada, a woman had to get her husband's permission for birth control - and to open a bank account - because women are subject to men in Christianity.  

An American woman could not hold property in her own name until 1900, and it was legal to beat your wife until 1920.   

Gay people in Canada were still being arrested in the 70s, and still being beaten and sometimes killed in the 80s- because Christianity disapproved of gay people.  

And yes, Western society has progressed, but its been in spite of Christianity, not because of it.  Every step towards equal rights for women, gays, indigenous people, Christianity fought hard against**.   Islamic countries may be "behind" Western countries  but they're not that far behind - maybe 50 years, maybe less.

**This doesn't mean every Christian, btw; many Christian people also supported equal rights.

So, you're admitting that they progressed.

And, tbh, it probably wasn't just the religion, there were a lot of people who were only loosely-affiliated with the religion involved in the process. Maybe it also had to do with mass media. Maybe it was because people from all over Europe integrated together in NA and found out that their similarities outweighed their differences. I don't honestly know why, but whatever it was, the progress was real.

Islam hasn't made that jump yet on a broad front. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Honestly eyeball you either have no clue or you lie about any topic that you touch on, and your "joke" is predicated on falsehoods so it's not really a joke.

All the same clues about the topics we cover around here are as available to me as you.  You call me a liar on virtually every topic we discuss without ever providing a single piece of direct evidence to substantiate your accusation. So fuck you too, especially if you can't take a joke.

 

Quote

What you call 'islamophobia' is actually just a logical conclusion

The word simply means a fear of Islam.  It's certainly rational and logical to be afraid of terrorism but its illogical and irrational to fear Islam when it's not the cause of terrorism.  The root causes of this terrorism have been pointed out hundreds of times in these threads and hundreds of thousands of times elsewhere. The geopolitical causes are modern and recent enough to have occurred within living memory. Terrorism is a completely rational reaction of oppressed people to overpowering oppressors.  The US did not interfere in the ME region and fund and prop up dictators there because of things that happened in the Dark Ages and its stupid to believe otherwise and even stupider to spread such bullshit.

I doubt our societies would have fared any better under such pressure and I suspect our resistance and reaction to it would also be called terrorism and they'd rationalize their Christophobia the very same way you do which is to say stubbornly and ignorantly.

Edited January 19, 2020 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

All the same clues about the topics we cover around here are as available to me as you.  You call me a liar on virtually every topic we discuss without ever providing a single piece of direct evidence to substantiate your accusation. So fuck you too, especially if you can't take a joke.

If the shoe fits wear it. You never admit when you're wrong, you just wait a couple days and say the exact same things that were proven false. You have the accountability of a ferret.

Quote

The word simply means a fear of Islam.  

You're wrong again, as always.

A phobia is an 'irrational' fear. And what you're talking about isn't 'fear', it's just the truth.

Eg, a person is afraid of daddy-long-legs spiders, and those spiders aren't harmful to humans at all. That's arachnophobia. 

Another person says "Funnel-Web spiders are venomous, and their venom, if left untreated, is a serious threat to life, especially in children." That's not arachnophobia, it's just a fact about funnel-web spiders. 

Quote

It's certainly rational and logical to be afraid of terrorism but its illogical and irrational to fear Islam when it's not the cause of terrorism.

That's another lie. When people yell ___________ ____________ to their god and kill children in his name, they're the ones who get to decide why they killed and then died. Not you. 

Quote

The root causes of this terrorism have been pointed out hundreds of times in these threads and hundreds of thousands of times elsewhere. The geopolitical causes are modern and recent enough to have occurred within living memory. Terrorism is a completely rational reaction of oppressed people to overpowering oppressors.  

There you go, justifying terrorism again, out of your sheer ignorance. 

Terrorist attack girls in Afghanistan for going to school and they attack other muslims all the time. 

People like you who justify the existence of Pakistan, despite the murders of over 13 million people since their foundation in the '40s, but justify terrorist attacks against Israel, created in similar fashion but with less than 1% of the deaths, are just bigots. You are a bigot. You just don't know it. 

Quote

The US did not interfere in the ME region and fund and prop up dictators there because of things that happened in the Dark Ages and its stupid to believe otherwise and even stupider to spread such bullshit.

I doubt our societies would have fared any better under such pressure and I suspect our resistance and reaction to it would also be called terrorism and they'd rationalize their Christophobia the very same way you do which is to say stubbornly and ignorantly.

The history of the ME was no better than it's post-1940s history. Explain to me why they needed to kill tens of millions of people in India when they were never attacked?

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

If the shoe fits wear it. You never admit when you're wrong,

Horseshit. I apologized to both Shady and Argus just within the last month when I was wrong.  I guess you must like to build your strawmen out of digested straw that's already passed thru the horse.

No doubt whatever else you posted is likewise pre-contaminated.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

Christianity has only "progressed" in the last 100 years or so.  In Canada, the Catholic Church was still (often violently) imposing its beliefs, with government support, on indigenuous children until at least 1960 - "for their own good". 

Nonsense. The main purpose of residential schools was to educate young people and thus allow them to join the rest of Canada, rather than keeping them out in the bushes out of sight the way you want to. Nor was it purposefully violent.

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

Until the 80s, it was legal in Canada to rape your wife because Christianity held that a woman owed her husband sex.   

It's legal to rape your wife in every Muslim country today.

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

In 1960 in Canada, a woman had to get her husband's permission for birth control - and to open a bank account - because women are subject to men in Christianity.  

Women in today's Muslim world can't leave the house or make an appointment with their doctor without their husband's permission. And they are, by law, worth only one quarter of a man.

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

An American woman could not hold property in her own name until 1900, and it was legal to beat your wife until 1920.   

It's legal to beat your wife today in the Muslim world.

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

Gay people in Canada were still being arrested in the 70s,

Gay people in the Muslim world are being beaten, tortured, imprisoned and executed TODAY throughout the Muslim world.

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

And yes, Western society has progressed, but its been in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

On the contrary. Christianity allowed for that progress where Islam has not. Christianity allowed for different opinions and interpretations of the bible, and allowed people to discuss the meaning and morality of some of the old testament stuff to the point they decided it wasn't really Christian to do things like that. Such discussions are banned in the Muslim world, on pain of imprisonment or death. Because the Koran is considered the literal word of God anyone who disagrees with it is blaspheming and subject to dire punishment.

6 hours ago, dialamah said:

Islamic countries may be "behind" Western countries  but they're not that far behind - maybe 50 years, maybe less.

Drivel. Muslim countries are nothing like what the West was in 1970. We didn't execute gays, then or ever. We didn't execute adulterers. We didn't put people in prison or threaten to kill them for wanting to change religions. You couldn't be killed in the West for blaspheme. Not by the government and not by rabid mobs of fundies. Nor was it ever codified in law that a woman's word was worth one quarter that of a man.

The Muslim world would need enormous progress to get to where we were fifty years ago. But they're not progressing. They're not getting more liberal but more conservative, more strict in their observance of religious law.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The whole point is that Christianity progressed. It's a much better brand now than it was 1,000 years ago.

Western civilization is great and became great because we came out of the dark ages and realized that science and reason, not religious dogma, can solve our problems.  Anyone who thinks a religious text should form the basis of our laws and ethics is still living in the dark ages and isn't using their brains and probably thinks people who put their penises in people's bum-holes should go to hell or be killed.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Horseshit. I apologized to both Shady and Argus just within the last month when I was wrong.  I guess you must like to build your strawmen out of digested straw that's already passed thru the horse.

No doubt whatever else you posted is likewise pre-contaminated.

Hahaha, you apologized once this month? We both know that you're wrong way more than that eyeball. 

[WestCanMan]

35 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Western civilization is great and became great because we came out of the dark ages and realized that science and reason, not religious dogma, can solve our problems.  Anyone who thinks a religious text should form the basis of our laws and ethics is still living in the dark ages and isn't using their brains and probably thinks people who put their penises in people's bum-holes should go to hell or be killed.

Agreed, although there's some unnecessary graphic description there lol.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Nonsense. The main purpose of residential schools was to educate young people and thus allow them to join the rest of Canada, rather than keeping them out in the bushes out of sight the way you want to. Nor was it purposefully violent.

Did you know that the indigenuous kids were deliberately starved in those places, as an experiment?   Pedophiles  sought jobs at residential schools, for obvious reasons.  Not just priests, but support staff as well, custodians, gardeners, nuns.  The kids would lie awake at night, in their beds, waiting till the choice - or choices- for the night were made before they'd feel safe enough to sleep.   If a girl became pregnant as a result of the sexual abuse, the baby was taken and - at best adopted out, but many died and were buried on the grounds.  These kids were horribly traumatized by being ripped from their families, often violently and as young as four or five, taken by cattle truck to a place where they could not communicate because they didn't know English or French and were severely punished if they spoke their own language.  They were deliberately separated from siblings or cousins, had their hair cut, put in iniforms, given a number and were told they could not use the name given them by their family   They were starved, beaten, sexually abused, made to feel shame for their culture and skin and forced to convert to Christianity.  5000 kids died at these residential schools.  Most of the rest endured years of trauma.  There was no interest in preparing these kids for Canadian society; the goal was to assimilate them in the most brutal way possible.

ETA:  yeah  I would have preferred to keep them out in the bush as an alternative to what did happen to them.  

Edited January 20, 2020 by dialamah

[Rue]

17 hours ago, eyeball said:

Horseshit. I apologized to both Shady and Argus just within the last month when I was wrong.  I guess you must like to build your strawmen out of digested straw that's already passed thru the horse.

No doubt whatever else you posted is likewise pre-contaminated.

Eye..I do note .these references to  wrong or right thrown at you So..with that said..I say to you...when you disagree with me and we will you have nothing to apologize for. Question and challenge every frigging word I say.

As for this thread, it started off pointing out negative behaviour of specific Muslims in Canada linked to immigration and refugee policies and look how far the thread has drifted from the actual topic-that is because the original premises is not sustainable. 

The crowning achievement on this thread for me Eye  I believe  was when I was told in response to and for debating Muslims should not be negatively generalized by the behaviour of a minority of them, was the comment of a reference that suggested my argument but then mean  most Germans were good people during WW2.  Yes Germany was a civilized nation. It was a nation of artists, scientists, scholars. Imagine anyone thinking it would produce Nazis but it did and precisely because it did it  showed "good" or "civilized" people quickly turn into indecent inhumane people capable of carrying out a holocaust precisely because they bought into a  group cognitive process that made sweeping negative generalizations about a particular people to justify dehumanizing that people as a way to unify the majority and get them to follow their leader by making themselves feel good about themselves by having a targeted group they could all hate. The lesson insight that poster did not grasp from Hitler was that negative generalizations make it possible and easy to dehumanize and hate the targeted group to then make it so easy  to kill, hurt or discriminate and become the very terrorist or Nazi we claim to fight.

For me the pith and substance of this thread and its not a matter of being right or wrong or politically correct, is how we rationally create government policies or deal with terrorism or security issues without engaging in exercises that could turn us into the very terrorists or Nazis some refer to. This is why I find it strange being a member of a group who were mass exterminated because of negative stereotyping, someone would claim we Jews should know better and should  negatively stereotype Muslims because "they" hate us.

 For anyone to tell me I should repeat the exercise with anyone else after what happened to my family is absurd and you need not apologize. You get that.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Rue

[Argus]

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

Did you know that the indigenuous kids were deliberately starved in those places, as an experiment? 

The government did a lot of stuff in the 40s and 50s towards everyone, including exposing them to radiation and psychadelic drugs. That's unrelated to the residential schools, though.

13 hours ago, dialamah said:

Pedophiles  sought jobs at residential schools, for obvious reasons.  Not just priests, but support staff as well, custodians, gardeners, nuns. 

As they did in all other schools, regular and boarding. They volunteered to be coaches and boy scout leaders. This was not unique to the residential schools. Boarding schools were a regular part of the national culture, back then, and a lot of things happened in them to miserable kids far from home. Even Prince Charles has horrific memories of his time in boarding school.

 

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Rue said:

The crowning achievement on this thread for me Eye  I believe  was when I was told in response to and for debating Muslims should not be negatively generalized by the behaviour of a minority of them, was the comment of a reference that suggested my argument but then mean  most Germans were good people during WW2.  Yes Germany was a civilized nation. It was a nation of artists, scientists, scholars. Imagine anyone thinking it would produce Nazis but it did and precisely because it did it  showed "good" or "civilized" people quickly turn into indecent inhumane people capable of carrying out a holocaust precisely because they bought into a  group cognitive process that made sweeping negative generalizations about a particular people to justify dehumanizing that people as a way to unify the majority and get them to follow their leader by making themselves feel good about themselves by having a targeted group they could all hate.

Uhm. No. The Nazis did not take power by demonizing Jews. Or rather that was merely a byproduct of their hyper nationalism. Basically they took power by promising an alternative to chaos, huge industrial expansion, jobs, and an end to the poverty and humiliation brought about by the previous war and the great depression. They could have done this without demonizing Jews and Gypsies and the rest, but they chose not to because it made things a little bit easier to suggest "Aryans" were superior (largely because most people don't know what an Aryan is). You also leave out a rather important aspect of this 'sweeping generalizations' thing. What was said about the Jews was wrong. Plain and simple.  The lurid, nonsensical exaggerations and lies had nothing to do with reality. They were not 'sweeping, negative generalizations but outright slander. This is the difference you refuse to see.

When I quote PEW research polls and other surveys into Muslim attitudes I am not lying nor distorting the truth. When I mention these attitudes and values in relation to whether it would be wise to bring in large numbers of such people into Canada without even attempting to discern how severe a particular applicant's social views are I am embracing logic, not lies or slander. Nor do I 'hate' Muslims. I merely feel contempt for the general social views and values of Muslim countries and have no desire to import them.

14 minutes ago, Rue said:

his is why I find it strange being a member of a group who were mass exterminated because of negative stereotyping, someone would claim we Jews should know better and should  negatively stereotype Muslims because "they" hate us.

Because logic and evidence plays no part in your thinking. Because the experience of Jews in Europe is unimportant. Because all the surveys and polls and reports are to be shrugged off.

Sorry. I don't operate that way.

 

[WestCanMan]

14 hours ago, dialamah said:

Did you know that the indigenuous kids were deliberately starved in those places, as an experiment?   Pedophiles  sought jobs at residential schools, for obvious reasons.  Not just priests, but support staff as well, custodians, gardeners, nuns.  The kids would lie awake at night, in their beds, waiting till the choice - or choices- for the night were made before they'd feel safe enough to sleep.   If a girl became pregnant as a result of the sexual abuse, the baby was taken and - at best adopted out, but many died and were buried on the grounds.  These kids were horribly traumatized by being ripped from their families, often violently and as young as four or five, taken by cattle truck to a place where they could not communicate because they didn't know English or French and were severely punished if they spoke their own language.  They were deliberately separated from siblings or cousins, had their hair cut, put in iniforms, given a number and were told they could not use the name given them by their family   They were starved, beaten, sexually abused, made to feel shame for their culture and skin and forced to convert to Christianity.  5000 kids died at these residential schools.  Most of the rest endured years of trauma.  There was no interest in preparing these kids for Canadian society; the goal was to assimilate them in the most brutal way possible.

ETA:  yeah  I would have preferred to keep them out in the bush as an alternative to what did happen to them.  

Your post, as a reply to Argus's comment, is just a ridiculous side note, and it's also intentionally misleading.

1) the actual intention was to help kids escape a life of hunting & fishing, and living in stone age houses (indigenous ppl here never got around to making bronze or iron) and to give them access to the modern economy, housing etc. Perversion wasn't an intentional strategy. It was a failing of individual humans.

2) Kids died of TB all over the place during that time, not just in residential schools. Don't act like it was murder.  

You're intentionally hate and fear mongering with crap posts like this dialamah.