Canada Wide Protests to start in ANTI-ISRAEL favor

[mikedavid00]

Hezbollah

You know, coming from Ottawa myself and living in the Toronto area, I was never in the middle of the action. I actually live in an Islamic neiborhood. My representitive is Liberal Wajid Khan and I am in a Muslim earea of town. Regardless of the fact that Islam is NOT a majority in my area, the fact that 20% or so is, means that our Liberal Represetative *is* a muslim. But that's a WHOLE OTHER POST. (only some of you will know the electoral crisis i'm speaking of that needs to be changed because it threatens the fundamentals of our Country).

Anyhow, there are going to be protests in *all* major Canadian cities, the largest they say in Montreal. The protests will be against Isreal. The head of the Islmic assosciation intructed everyone to come with *NO* Hezbollah flags and propeganda becuase they don't want to be seen as supporting Hezbollah (which they do).

I thought... hmmmm... you know what, wouldn't it be great to organize a counter rally? I could buy myself and my friends some army outfits and dress like Hezbollah. Evne some fake machine guns or swords. The funny thing is, I would wear a bandana around my fourhead that has Arabic writing that says "STOP MASS IMMIGRATION INTO CANADA". And the signs we're holding in Arabic would read - "PLEASE HARPER, STOP MASS IMMIGRATION - WE"VE HAD ENOUGH!"

And we would stand there patrolling our posts outside of Queens Park like freedom fighters of Hezbollah!

If anyone is intrested, I just might do this. reply and let me know. I'll even pay for all the army outfits. (I'm serious too).

LOL!

[Hicksey]

I wouldn't be surprised after all the demands made of Israel which have been largely been granted, that the next demand will be that all Israelis kill and bury themselves and bequeath their lands in equal parts to their neighboring countries.

What baffles me is how liberals -- who have historically sided with the underdog of a dispute -- can support the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, etc who have been bullying Israel for years now. And how liberals -- traditionally against war -- can continue to support the opponents of Israel.

Can someone explain how this is?

Israel has continually bowed to the demands of these countries and as a result all the lands they've given back are being used to attack them.

To me it doesn't add up.

For instance, I think its stupid for both sides to engage in warfare over what I can best find out has been the capture of 2 of Israel's soldiers.

What am I not seeing?

[jdobbin]

What am I not seeing?

What Liberals didn't lay blame at Hezbollah's door for the hostilities starting?

[jbg]

I thought... hmmmm... you know what, wouldn't it be great to organize a counter rally? I could buy myself and my friends some army outfits and dress like Hezbollah. Evne some fake machine guns or swords. The funny thing is, I would wear a bandana around my fourhead that has Arabic writing that says "STOP MASS IMMIGRATION INTO CANADA". And the signs we're holding in Arabic would read - "PLEASE HARPER, STOP MASS IMMIGRATION - WE"VE HAD ENOUGH!"

And we would stand there patrolling our posts outside of Queens Park like freedom fighters of Hezbollah!

If anyone is intrested, I just might do this. reply and let me know. I'll even pay for all the army outfits. (I'm serious too).

LOL!

Will you buy me a turban? Imagine, a Jewish bankruptcy lawyer entering a secure federal courthouse wearing a turban?

What baffles me is how liberals -- who have historically sided with the underdog of a dispute -- can support the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, etc who have been bullying Israel for years now. And how liberals -- traditionally against war -- can continue to support the opponents of Israel.

Can someone explain how this is?

Israel has continually bowed to the demands of these countries and as a result all the lands they've given back are being used to attack them.

To me it doesn't add up.

For instance, I think its stupid for both sides to engage in warfare over what I can best find out has been the capture of 2 of Israel's soldiers.

What am I not seeing?

Because the Jewish people, whether in Israel, Canada or the US work and aren't professional, perpetual victims.

[Hicksey]

What baffles me is how liberals -- who have historically sided with the underdog of a dispute -- can support the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, etc who have been bullying Israel for years now. And how liberals -- traditionally against war -- can continue to support the opponents of Israel.

Can someone explain how this is?

Israel has continually bowed to the demands of these countries and as a result all the lands they've given back are being used to attack them.

To me it doesn't add up.

For instance, I think its stupid for both sides to engage in warfare over what I can best find out has been the capture of 2 of Israel's soldiers.

What am I not seeing?

Because the Jewish people, whether in Israel, Canada or the US work and aren't professional, perpetual victims.

I had hoped it was more intelligent than that. Judging by the lack of people rushing to dismiss your comment, maybe you're not too far from the truth.

I wonder if it is because the Americans support Israel, and we are brainwashed by the Liberals, NDP and the Canadian media that everything about the US is to be hated, that it is assumed that we should just automatically side against Israel because they are backed by the US.

What I don't understand is why these countries just can't 'get along' like the rest of us do. There are a lot of countries that don't like each other or what others stand for that don't send homocide bombers to kill innocent people, that don't pull out the heavy artillery every time a pair of their soldiers are captured that can get along in the world regardless of their objections. Why can't the middle east?

I've used the word over and over and I think it applies well here too. Why can't these neanderthals (radical Islam) understand and function within the ways of the world today? Why can't they just accept that they aren't going to like everyone in the world, and that they aren't going to agree with everyone's way of life? Why do they have to kill everyone who does not live as they do?

What is sad about this is that a lot of good, peaceful Muslim people are having their names dragged through the mud by these zealots.

[gerryhatrick]

Regardless of the fact that Islam is NOT a majority in my area, the fact that 20% or so is, means that our Liberal Represetative *is* a muslim. But that's a WHOLE OTHER POST. (only some of you will know the electoral crisis i'm speaking of that needs to be changed because it threatens the fundamentals of our Country).

Well come on, don't be shy. Explain it to the rest of us.

What is your "electoral crisis"? You have a Mulsim representative, but only 20% Muslim population...and that's a crisis. How? Is it Sharia law that you're fear-mongering about here? Explain your "crisis".

I have a Christian representative, and I'd say less than 20% of my riding is Christian. I work with two people who put themselves down as Catholic on the census, but they haven't been to church since they got married and they don't even pray. Should we be worried about an electoral crisis?

[cybercoma]

Well come on, don't be shy. Explain it to the rest of us.

What is your "electoral crisis"? You have a Mulsim representative, but only 20% Muslim population...and that's a crisis. How? Is it Sharia law that you're fear-mongering about here? Explain your "crisis".

I have a Christian representative, and I'd say less than 20% of my riding is Christian. I work with two people who put themselves down as Catholic on the census, but they haven't been to church since they got married and they don't even pray. Should we be worried about an electoral crisis?

Except that the Muslim religion and Christian religion are entirely different, where one has deep rooted belief in destroying anything that doesn't follow it's "laws" and the other believes in forgiveness, there's absolutely nothing to be worried about.

[Michael Hardner]

Except that the Muslim religion and Christian religion are entirely different, where one has deep rooted belief in destroying anything that doesn't follow it's "laws" and the other believes in forgiveness, there's absolutely nothing to be worried about.

Enough of this lazy thinking, please ! You can find commandments to perform criminal acts in the holy books of all three 'great' religions.

MikeDavid, will you answer gerryhatrick's question or will you evade it, as you did previously my question - the one where I asked you to source your assertion that truck drivers in India had masters' degrees ?

[cybercoma]

Except that the Muslim religion and Christian religion are entirely different, where one has deep rooted belief in destroying anything that doesn't follow it's "laws" and the other believes in forgiveness, there's absolutely nothing to be worried about.

Enough of this lazy thinking, please ! You can find commandments to perform criminal acts in the holy books of all three 'great' religions.

MikeDavid, will you answer gerryhatrick's question or will you evade it, as you did previously my question - the one where I asked you to source your assertion that truck drivers in India had masters' degrees ?

Forget the commandments in books, etc. Look at the Christian nations and what they're doing for humanity and look at the Islamic nations and what they're doing.

[Michael Hardner]

Forget the commandments in books, etc. Look at the Christian nations and what they're doing for humanity and look at the Islamic nations and what they're doing.

Again, this is simplistic. What you're doing is starting with the notion that Muslims are inferior, and working backwards to find a reason why. If you're interested in researching some of the factors that have led to the relative wealth of certain nations, I recommend 'Guns, Germs, and Steel' by Jared Diamond.

All of this follows a general anti-Immigration thread which is currently directed against Muslims, but has also been directed against Chinese, Jews and other groups in the past. There are good economic reasons for immigration, and I believe we'll see that Mr. Harper continues in much the same way as the previous government.

[Leafless]

What baffles me is how liberals -- who have historically sided with the underdog of a dispute -- can support the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, etc who have been bullying Israel for years now. And how liberals -- traditionally against war -- can continue to support the opponents of Israel.

Can someone explain how this is?

In the eyes of the Liberals Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians are the underdog.

They are supporting the notion 'to take for no other reason than to think you are entitled to it'.

This is the same philosophy applied to Quebec in which sense according to the Liberals that they are also underdogs (quiet revolution) and they have every right to take just because they figure their entitled to it despite having no real legal rights in Canada outside of the imaginary 'founding nation' bit which in Canadian politics overrides the British victory on 'The Plains of Abraham.'

The Liberals are also the ones that opened the 'flood gates to the little guy ethnic cultures' and dual citizenship for Liberal votes.

The Liberals IMO have always been out to topple White, English speaking Canadians and anything that involves majority control.

[Argus]

All of this follows a general anti-Immigration thread which is currently directed against Muslims, but has also been directed against Chinese, Jews and other groups in the past. There are good economic reasons for immigration,

Name `em.

[Argus]

Regardless of the fact that Islam is NOT a majority in my area, the fact that 20% or so is, means that our Liberal Represetative *is* a muslim. But that's a WHOLE OTHER POST. (only some of you will know the electoral crisis i'm speaking of that needs to be changed because it threatens the fundamentals of our Country).

Well come on, don't be shy. Explain it to the rest of us.

What is your "electoral crisis"? You have a Mulsim representative, but only 20% Muslim population...and that's a crisis. How?

Could be he feels this representative does not represent Canada or what is in Canada's best interest, but is mainly concerned with representing the Muslim community, who are mainly not Canadian either, and who have the best interests of their "Home" countries at heart.

They also tend to vote 100% for someone of their own ethinc "tribe", which is racist, but they never get called for it by the lefties and liberals. Thus if an area is 20% Muslim, 99% of the Muslims will vote for him, thus making him the long shot favorite to win.

[Michael Hardner]

- Canada naturally has negative population growth. More people demand more goods, which spurs production.

- Lower labour costs improve productivity.

- Immigrants bring technical skills, contacts with global businesses, and innovation.

These are some of the arguments I've heard, from conservatives as well as liberals. The US has been adopting these policies, too, so it's not just a Canadian phenomenon.

[Black Dog]

What baffles me is how liberals -- who have historically sided with the underdog of a dispute -- can support the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, etc who have been bullying Israel for years now. And how liberals -- traditionally against war -- can continue to support the opponents of Israel.

Can someone explain how this is?

Because your read of the situation is all wrong. Israel has not granted "all the demands" made of them, nor have they been "bullied". Harrassed, yes, but the language of victimization is a bit tired.

Israel has continually bowed to the demands of these countries and as a result all the lands they've given back are being used to attack them.

That's due to Israel's failure to actually try to find anyone to work with to establish any kind of auhority in those areas.

Because the Jewish people, whether in Israel, Canada or the US work and aren't professional, perpetual victims.

Oh I don't know about that. After all, we sure hear a lot about how Israel is almost always teetering on the edge of the sea.

[watching&waiting]

Why should Israel keep allowing the Lebanese government and its terrorist groups to attack it from within Lebanon and capture soldiers from the Border and them take them back into Lebanon? I do not believe that anyone should be forced to endure that kind of action, without some kind of retaliation from Israel. Anyone who would support that kind of thinking by protesting here in Canada, is where we can see that we have allowed terrorists to imigrate into our own society.

It would seem to me that if the Lebanese government were really looking for a truce they would simply release the captured soldiers and make sure that the terrorist rocket attacks from within their borders cease. That is not a large thing to ask. If they continue to refuse to do so then I guess the conflict with Israel will continue, even though it is a one side fight. Lebanon can not defend itself again their own people let alone against a major power. So why would they be so dumb as to start this war? If any protests should be done it should be to make the Lebanese government settle this right now by surrendering and giving up those who have been attacking Israel from within Lebanon, and return the soldiers that were kidnapped. Any Muslim Imans who support these kind of actions with their preaching here in Canada, we should then think about deportation for them, as they are the supportters of terrorism. Canadians need to take a stand where we have zero tolerance for this kind of thing, and do not want it within our borders.

[Argus]

- Canada naturally has negative population growth.

According to stats I've posted if we completely halted all immigration our population would decline by a fraction of a percent over the next 30 years.

More people demand more goods, which spurs production.

But that doesn't mean we are richer because of it. In my life Canada's population has risen from 20 mill to 30 mill, and we are not richer - in fact, we are generally poorer.

- Lower labour costs improve productivity.

Not if a large percentage of the labour in question are uneducated and unskilled.

- Immigrants bring technical skills, contacts with global businesses, and innovation.

And yet, as we bring in more and more immigrants our collective wealth continues to diminish. Why is that?

[Michael Hardner]

According to stats I've posted if we completely halted all immigration our population would decline by a fraction of a percent over the next 30 years.

But that doesn't mean we are richer because of it. In my life Canada's population has risen from 20 mill to 30 mill, and we are not richer - in fact, we are generally poorer.

'We', meaning whom ? The average Canadian ? The typical Canadian ?

Your implication seems to lead you into NDP territory.

QUOTE

- Lower labour costs improve productivity.

Not if a large percentage of the labour in question are uneducated and unskilled.

How does that matter ? If you work for less, business can pay for your training out of their savings.

And yet, as we bring in more and more immigrants our collective wealth continues to diminish. Why is that?

I would say because the economics are tilted towards those who are closest to power. What would you say ?

[jdobbin]

Not sure if this should be covered in another area of the forum. Here's some info though that could help your argument, Michael.

http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/sociology/popstudies/dp/dp03-03.pdf

[jbg]

What baffles me is how liberals -- who have historically sided with the underdog of a dispute -- can support the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, etc who have been bullying Israel for years now. And how liberals -- traditionally against war -- can continue to support the opponents of Israel.

The Liberals are also the ones that opened the 'flood gates to the little guy ethnic cultures' and dual citizenship for Liberal votes.

The Liberals IMO have always been out to topple White, English speaking Canadians and anything that involves majority control.

The same was true during the days after WW I, when Brits had a romantic idea of tribes and tribal life. The results, in the historical development of places like Iraq, were horrifying.

[Hicksey]

What baffles me is how liberals -- who have historically sided with the underdog of a dispute -- can support the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, etc who have been bullying Israel for years now. And how liberals -- traditionally against war -- can continue to support the opponents of Israel.

Can someone explain how this is?

Because your read of the situation is all wrong. Israel has not granted "all the demands" made of them, nor have they been "bullied". Harrassed, yes, but the language of victimization is a bit tired.

Israel has continually bowed to the demands of these countries and as a result all the lands they've given back are being used to attack them.

That's due to Israel's failure to actually try to find anyone to work with to establish any kind of auhority in those areas.

If my read is wrong, then what is the right one?

Please don't mistake my siding with Israel to mean that I think they can do no wrong. As far as I have read in the news, the current conflict started over the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers that Hezbollah is refusing to return, though things were uneasy between them for years before this dispute erupted into the localized war it has. If a nation went to war every time one or two of their soldiers were caught, there would always be at war going on. Israel is at fault with regard to the current fighting, no question.

I just don't understand why it is always Israel that has to give. A country that stands where Israel does geographically ends up being in the middle of about 10 other countries that not only want their land, but their country disbanded, and to kill whatever Jewish people do not switch their religious alliances to Islam.

So why are the people that want to oppress Israelis worthy of our support? Are Iran, Hezbollah, Syria right and Israel does not deserve to exist?

My original point was that liberals have traditionally stood behind people in that position. Of course, the US has been behind Israel, so the bullying is kept to a minimum as to mess too seriously with Israel is to mess with the USA--and we know they're not shy about using their military.

[MightyAC]

Could be he feels this representative does not represent Canada or what is in Canada's best interest, but is mainly concerned with representing the Muslim community, who are mainly not Canadian either, and who have the best interests of their "Home" countries at heart.

They also tend to vote 100% for someone of their own ethinc "tribe", which is racist, but they never get called for it by the lefties and liberals. Thus if an area is 20% Muslim, 99% of the Muslims will vote for him, thus making him the long shot favorite to win.

Thanks for the laugh this morning. I usually like wittier comedy but on occasion stupid, Sandler/Schneider funny hits the spot.

Argus calling a community racist....hey kettle it's the pot calling.

So a community is racist if they vote for a candidate of their own ethnic and religious background? It couldn't be they feel that candidate has their best interests at heart could it.

My MP is an aging, white. conservative Christian, socon and he received a lot of his support from the white Christian community. Would the fact that the vast majority of the white, Christian community voted for a white Christian make that community racist? of course not...

Also, in your example 99% of 20% of the riding voted for one candidate. Not all of that 20% would be of voting age, or would actually vote so let's be generous and say they represent 15% of the vote. Unless every other party in that riding is well supported and the vote is evenly split several ways, that candidate would need a hell of a lot of support from the non-Muslim community as well. With that in mind I'd guess that candidate is a Muslim that represents the entire centre-left, not just his “tribe”, and that riding is primarily centre-left.

[mikedavid00]

Regardless of the fact that Islam is NOT a majority in my area, the fact that 20% or so is, means that our Liberal Represetative *is* a muslim. But that's a WHOLE OTHER POST. (only some of you will know the electoral crisis i'm speaking of that needs to be changed because it threatens the fundamentals of our Country).

Well come on, don't be shy. Explain it to the rest of us.

What is your "electoral crisis"? You have a Mulsim representative, but only 20% Muslim population...and that's a crisis. How?

Could be he feels this representative does not represent Canada or what is in Canada's best interest, but is mainly concerned with representing the Muslim community, who are mainly not Canadian either, and who have the best interests of their "Home" countries at heart.

They also tend to vote 100% for someone of their own ethinc "tribe", which is racist, but they never get called for it by the lefties and liberals. Thus if an area is 20% Muslim, 99% of the Muslims will vote for him, thus making him the long shot favorite to win.

That's correct.

"This is a victory for Islam! Islam won! Islam Won! .. Islamic power is extending into Canadian politics." - Omar Alghabra winning his Liberal membership race.

Ok read and learn of the upcoming crisis we are facing with our political system and immigration.

When Omar Alghabra ran in his riding for the Liberal Membershiip vote, only those Liberals invited where of an Islamic descent. Thus a special interest group in a minority saw to it that represented a party that was goign to be elected. For instance, Navdeep Bains (a turbaned Sikh who is an immigrant) was representing my riding for the Conservative Party. There are very few Sikh's here in this riding, but enough that if the majority of his membership are Sikh, they can vote him in.

Many people don't know candidates get elected in their own party. Anyon can do it; you just need enough supporters within your party to back you.

What's happening is that people of the same religions are backing each other behind closed door liberal membership races. The outcome are small, non representative ethnic minorities now being front runners for election day and if you in Ontario and in the Liberal Party you'll win. Thus, people who vote for their 'party' are voting in someone to represent them who got in there in the first place.

Here was Omars election speech when he won his membership in a room full of mostly Muslims:

"The result tonight is a prove for Muslims unity and a victory for Islam, and that Arab mean Muslims and although Mr. Hazineh (the riding president) keep telling me he is a Christian I am telling him that he better be a muslim" He also said that this is the beginning to take over other ridings in Mississauga and later take over Canada. He also added "Do not vote Conservative they are against Islam and Muslims". For each of this statement the Alghabra's supporters cheered and clapped."

This incident was actually investigated by the Liberal party and also made national news for a day. Naturally, nothing was done about it and the Liberal party gave no further comment on the issue.

Omar won by 488 of 773 votes.

Also I was looking for a letter written in to the Toront Sun from someone that was at the nomination. He has been a member since the 70's and has ran a couple times himself. He said that many people of whome he knew did not recieve the invtes and neither did he. He said that when he arrived the room looked clearly to made of a muslim, arab descent who were mostly immigrants. I really whish I could find his letter.

Anyhow, the whole idea of the membership race is to have members run against each other and the membership is supposed to pick the best 'politician' of the bunch. The best speaker, looking, qualified, etc. so he or she can move on to run in his rididng and get the party in power.

What's happening is that this system has been hijacked in most areas where there are 3rd world ethnic communitities (this isn't happening with Portruguese or Italian) and the votes are now going to people who come from the same religious or tribal background.

Why do you think Ruby Dahla has a seat in Parliment? How do you think she got there?

Do I want Navdeep Bains representing me? Hell no. He doesn't look out for my interest whatsoever.

But now minorities (no pun intended) are getting into places of power unjustly and I really feel it's time to reconfigure the nomination process because memberships are being one for racist reasons.

And yes, that's the real usage of the word racism.

[mikedavid00]

Could be he feels this representative does not represent Canada or what is in Canada's best interest, but is mainly concerned with representing the Muslim community, who are mainly not Canadian either, and who have the best interests of their "Home" countries at heart.

They also tend to vote 100% for someone of their own ethinc "tribe", which is racist, but they never get called for it by the lefties and liberals. Thus if an area is 20% Muslim, 99% of the Muslims will vote for him, thus making him the long shot favorite to win.

Argus calling a community racist....hey kettle it's the pot calling.

If they are voting in people simply because their background then it is racism.

So a community is racist if they vote for a candidate of their own ethnic and religious background? It couldn't be they feel that candidate has their best interests at heart could it.

That's not the point of the MEMBERSHIP race. It's supposed to be what's best for the party and the community as a whole. It's not supposed to be based of religion or race. There's an elected minority now speaking for a majority. I assure you the average person in Erindale does not think Omar speaks for them.

My MP is an aging, white. conservative Christian, socon and he received a lot of his support from the white Christian community. Would the fact that the vast majority of the white, Christian community voted for a white Christian make that community racist? of course not...

Yes. That would be based off racism.

Also, in your example 99% of 20% of the riding voted for one candidate. Not all of that 20% would be of voting age, or would actually vote so let's be generous and say they represent 15% of the vote.

We're talking about 700 votes here. You can win with just 5% racial representation. If you can round up over 350 of your friends and supporters, you will win the membership race then the mass public will be forced to vote for you.

If you haven't noticed, there are a lack of qualified, intelligent people in the house of commons. Most of which are in the Liberal Party becuase unqualified people are hijacking the memberships. I'm talking about taping phone conversations, dating each other, shoplifting, etc etc.

One Sikh girl in BC who was running for the NDP membership got busted with 2 guys trying to smuggle in ecstacy from across the border.

This is what's beginning to happen at the grass roots of our politics. We need to change the system around fast. Maybe setup a status quoe or something because this is going to become a serious problem soon.

[Argus]

According to stats I've posted if we completely halted all immigration our population would decline by a fraction of a percent over the next 30 years.

But that doesn't mean we are richer because of it. In my life Canada's population has risen from 20 mill to 30 mill, and we are not richer - in fact, we are generally poorer.

'We', meaning whom ? The average Canadian ? The typical Canadian ?

Your implication seems to lead you into NDP territory.

I don't think it's typical NDP territory to suggest that a program which does not benefit Canada, nor ordinary Canadians ought to be reconsidered. If the net economic result of wide scale immigration is less wealth for those who are here then why are we doing it? The NDP wouldn't care about stuff like that. All they'd care about would be that most immigrants have brown skin, and so they're totally in favour of it.

And no, the NDP really doesn't get any more complicated than that.

- Lower labour costs improve productivity.

Not if a large percentage of the labour in question are uneducated and unskilled.

How does that matter ? If you work for less, business can pay for your training out of their savings.

If a large percentage of those coming in are poor, are below the poverty line, then they are net drains on the economy, consuming more in government services than they pay for. Why on earth are my taxes going to pay the welfare and health care costs of immigrants brough in from some pesthole who will never contribute economically due to lack of skill, education etc.?