Imported Muslim terrorist offs 11 Jews celebrating the first day of Hanukkah.

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, Venandi said:

In response to the ubiquitous "cite please" here are some AI responses I saved that are applicable (specifically) to the Gaza Strip... anyone wanting a more comprehensive breakdown with individual links will have to do their own homework:

• Approximately 75% supported the October 7th Hamas attack, which resulted in substantial loss of life and violence against civilians. This reflects a willingness among a significant number of Palestinians to endorse extreme measures in the conflict.
• More than 85% reject the idea of coexistence with Israel, indicating a preference for confrontational approaches rather than diplomatic solutions.
• A notable 71.1% are committed to restoring a "historical Palestine", which implies asserting claims over what is currently Israel and reflects a rejection of the legitimacy of the Israeli state.

 

Cite means you have to provide a link to the source.

41 minutes ago, Venandi said:

In response to the ubiquitous "cite please"  

And by the way, I provided cites and people just don't accept them. 

I feel that some people don't accept information that challenges them. It's too bad, after all this is supposed to be a discussion board.

[West]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Cite please.

Thats your stat

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, but I have had plenty of religious friends.  It's not hard to navigate such things.  Not everyone hates you, and the vast majority understand that people get to decide how to live their own lives.

Your charicature isn't applicable: have you even ever known a Muslim?

Mike i spent the last decade of my IT career surrounded by them. I found out:

Many of them have either bought their degrees, or outright lie about their education. As a result, much of what they do, needs to be redone.

They never seem to be interested in team lunches when it's their turn to pay.

Mid-day prayer time seems to coincide with meetings.

They are not interested in assimilation. 

A lot of them have multiple generations of family living with them.

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/

% who say homosexuality should be accepted by society: Muslims 45% Christians 36%.  

This speaks directly to claims above.

Funny how you had to find a 10 year old poll rather than a current poll: Pew

However, that poll is of Americans and I am talking about people immigrating to the US. A more pertinent poll would be world views: Pew

Notice that the countries that we generally consider eastern cultural and the countries that generally practice Islam are heavily antigay. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 I never said that.

I know you didn't. I said that Mislims have laws that allow them to kill gays and Christians don't. You tried to dismiss that.

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But the inference is that they're not assimilating (they are) and also that they can't, ie. They're unlike every other human subgroup.

The polls you cite have (at best) a mix of people born here and immigrants. It is flawed. We saw that in Texas were an immigrant killed his daughter in an honor killing. She was accepting of western values because she was born here and grew up around it. He was not. Source

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

. I don't hate Christians, I am Christian.  I am asking you to retract based on the basic framework for respectful discussion.  I never said Christians hate gays.  I'll give you another chance to retract based on your reading of this post.

You are using old polls and extremist examples to paint this picture that Christians hate gays and hold the same views as Muslims. Those are blatant lies. You clearly have some level of animosity towards Christianity. 

 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are fundamentalist values which are difficult in a pluralistic society, but with healthy politics they can be navigated.  And there are liberal Muslims.

Not in eastern countries. 

Let's say just 5% of Muslims hold the views I have outlined. If we let in 1 million, that is 50,000 that think it is ok to kill gays and jews. 

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not hurt, but I don't have to continue a discussion with someone who belittles me based on misunderstanding my position.  Why would you even want to discuss with someone who you disrespect?

There is no misunderstanding. You just got called out for your views and you don't like it 

[User]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't get it.  You're saying that I only argue if I'm attacked? 

I have a lot of folks on ignore so I don't see those posts unless I unhide them.

No. I didn’t say that at all. How do you read what I typed and then come up with asking me if I said something I clearly didn’t?

The point was: Regardless if people engage with you more civilly, you will come up with some other excuse to run away when your points are criticized or especially when your tactics on here to obfuscate or not engage earnestly get called out. 

[John Stone]

cites?

'don't believe everything you read on the internet' / Bill Shakespeare

 

[Deluge]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Simple?  No.

Politically tenable? No.

Morally correct?  No.

Simple? Yes - you simply put it to a vote. 

Politically tenable? Yes, absolutely. You either assimilate to this Christian nation or you go back to the ME. 

Morally correct? Yes, absolutely. Jesus has to be the chief societal influence, not Allah. Move to the ME if you want Allah to be the chief societal influence. 

 

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I counted attacks not "plots".  We have the van killer in London, the Mosque shooting in Quebec and the Parliament Hill shooting.  I have stated my facts as have you,  then.

That's your willful ignorance again and poor grasp of statistics talking again, MH.

Look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Canada

To be perfectly fair it's not just people who successfully attack that are statistically significant. The people who went to the length to plan an attack and gather all the weapons and bombs are just as important, because our security costs reflect the fact that those people existed too, and were just as evil and as dangerous as the others.

And that's what we are actually taking about MH, is how evil some groups are, comparatively speaking, not how good their planning and execution is.

By your logic, law enforcement officials need to allow some of these attacks to be successful in order to get enough funding from the gov't to prevent or respond to future attacks. Right?

LPOC Cultist logic: "There were zero attacks in the last 5 years because the police caught all 50 terrorists right before they detonated their bombs. And seeing as we don't have terrorist attacks here anymore, we can shift our gov't funding away from the police to transgender surgeries. And I personally don't believe in islamic terrorists anyways. I think that white men commit way more terrorist attacks. They commit thousands each year. Just the other day, someone yelled at a synagogue, and it was probably a white man" 

When people say "why did Oct 7 occur? Were the Jews so evil that they let it happen, just so that they could attack?"

TBH, the only reason that question even makes sense is because some attacks like that do need to happen in  order for people like you to understand just how evil Hamas terrorist are. Before Oct 7th you didn't know that there were tens of thousands of people in Gaza who are evil enough to celebrate the burning to death of babies. You didn't know that children in Gaza would spit on the corpses of raped and murdered women with the adults' eager approval.  

We had 50 islamic terrorists in Canada since 2000. 50.

[Legato]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I just showed a survey that contradicts your belief.  You don't want to believe it, fine.  

But your response is just to say that you don't believe it.

I'm more convinced by research than your belief.

That biased miniscule cherry picked "survey". Well done.

No need to, or not to believe, you again are in defense of the indefensible.

Seems you are very easily convinced due to your abysmal research capability.

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, Venandi said:

I have a passing familiarity with assault riffles...

By definition they have detachable, high capacity magazines and selective fire.

Perhaps you could define "assault style" for us though... the Canadian government would probably appreciate your help.

Calling a semi automatic rifle with a five round magazine an "assault style rifle" is a bit like calling an F150 with racing stripes a "racing style pickup truck" and then banning it because it causes the owners of "racing trucks" to speed through residential areas. 

What if I were to suggest that the F in F150 actually stood for formula 1?

Just read the law which described the weapons banned. Duh

[robosmith]

On 12/14/2025 at 6:34 PM, Legato said:

It doesn't. Go and tell Hamas to stop hiding behind the children.

Where do you imagine there are places in Gaza that don't have children that can be killed by 2000lb bombs?

[robosmith]

On 12/14/2025 at 7:02 PM, West said:

What would you propose Israel do? These types of attacks are common because islamists are brainwashed to believe Muhammad wants the jews (and for that matter Christians) dead. 

You cannot negotiate with crazy. Which is why I oppose bringing Muslims over to the west

Because you believe a small group of crazy means every part of the ethnic group is.

Which is why I oppose bringing Canucks over to the US....

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Because you believe a small group of crazy means every part of the ethnic group is.

Maybe Prof. Gad Saad's explanation will help you with this:

I'd like to explain briefly the concept of the Precautionary Principle.

Humans have evolved the calculus to evaluate statistical probabilities to ensure their survival. Our cognitive and emotional systems did not evolve to refrain from being "phobic."

A woman might decide to take a short cut through a dark alley as it would reduce her walk home by 30 minutes. She notices that there are four young men loitering in the alley.

She decides that it is too risky to take the short cut because the costs are too great to bear NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the great majority of men are not rapists.

Hence, the fact that her brother, her best mate Percy, and her father have never raped anyone is inconsequential.

I hope that this helps as you navigate some of the issues.

[Goddess]

It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand anything, thus making discourse nearly impossible.

[robosmith]

17 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Maybe Prof. Gad Saad's explanation will help you with this:

I'd like to explain briefly the concept of the Precautionary Principle.

Humans have evolved the calculus to evaluate statistical probabilities to ensure their survival. Our cognitive and emotional systems did not evolve to refrain from being "phobic."

A woman might decide to take a short cut through a dark alley as it would reduce her walk home by 30 minutes. She notices that there are four young men loitering in the alley.

She decides that it is too risky to take the short cut because the costs are too great to bear NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the great majority of men are not rapists.

Hence, the fact that her brother, her best mate Percy, and her father have never raped anyone is inconsequential.

I hope that this helps as you navigate some of the issues.

It helps me because you've demonstrated IGNORANCE of the difference between hooligans loitering in an alley late at night and random samples of citizens displaying no suspicious behavior. 

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, Goddess said:

It's amazing how much leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand anything, thus making discourse nearly impossible.

I rest my case. 

Unless robotboy is not pretending.......🤔

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

the difference between hooligans loitering in an alley late at night

How sexist of you to assume they are hooligans.

[robosmith]

15 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I rest my case. 

Unless robotboy is not pretending.......🤔

How sexist of you to assume they are hooligans.

What other young men loiter in an alley late at night?

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What other young men loiter in an alley late at night?

All those who are not hooligans. Which group do you belong to?

 

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Legato said:

All those who are not hooligans. Which group do you belong to?

Not young and never loitered, CLOWN.

[Legato]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Not young and never loitered, CLOWN.

What are you doing here?

[CdnFox]

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Double response! No, I don't think I have called anyone here a chud.

Then you think wrong. I have watched you do so many times. I have called you out on numerous occasions pointing out that what you're attempting to do is dehumanize your enemy so you can ignore their arguments rather than address them.

So that was very dishonest of you to say.

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You said I enjoyed the killing of Innocents, go read it again.

The question isn't whether I read it again, the question is you said you didn't read it at all. I was just pointing out that that was obviously another dishonesty on your part

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You need to be civil with me and not disparage my character if you want to discuss.

YOU Need to be of good character and not dishonest then. You have not displayed that, and I don't need your cooperation to point out when you are being dishonest or why your arguments are wrong. If you want to choose to engage and have an honest discussion that's fine I don't mind that either. But that's a problem with your behavior not mine.

You know my rules. Behave just respectfully, be treated with disrespect.

You said I enjoyed the killing of Innocents, go read it again.

You need to be civil with me and not disparage my character if you want to discuss.  Why would you discuss with someone who you disrespect? 

Quote

Back to ignore, sadly...

Running and hiding after you engage is a common trick for you. We both know you read all my posts. You claim to put me on ignore so that you can get away with not replying and dealing with the criticism.

You're a terrible person Mike.

[Goddess]

5 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Then you think wrong. I have watched you do so many times.

After I took another bit of a hiatus from here, I came back and saw MH calling everyone chuds.

I had to look it up, never heard of it before.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

After I took another bit of a hiatus from here, I came back and saw MH calling everyone chuds.

I had to look it up, never heard of it before.

@Michael Hardner  definitely went through a phase where everybody that disagreed with him was a chud. He called everybody a Chud And yes he definitely called people here chuds. 

He's also got this thing where he lies or behaves in a deceptive or dishonest fashion, and then when somebody points out "Hey, that was dishonest and you're being a dishonest person" He acts all offended and plays the 'Howww DAAAAARE You!!" game and pretends to put people on ignore. 

And whenever anyone posts a fact he doesn't like he will ignore it and then if called on that later he will claim to have that person on ignore and that he didn't see it. Another popular game with the left.

Some people just don't get the idea that if you want respect you have to act respectably. 

[User]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

@Michael Hardner  definitely went through a phase where everybody that disagreed with him was a chud. He called everybody a Chud And yes he definitely called people here chuds. 

He's also got this thing where he lies or behaves in a deceptive or dishonest fashion, and then when somebody points out "Hey, that was dishonest and you're being a dishonest person" He acts all offended and plays the 'Howww DAAAAARE You!!" game and pretends to put people on ignore. 

And whenever anyone posts a fact he doesn't like he will ignore it and then if called on that later he will claim to have that person on ignore and that he didn't see it. Another popular game with the left.

Some people just don't get the idea that if you want respect you have to act respectably. 

But why are we even talking about this subject I always bring up and comment on when it suits me? lol 

[TreeBeard]

No mention by the unhinged mob on this forum about who took down the attacker.  Figures.