|
Post by Lee on Mar 4, 2015 23:48:15 GMT -5
Sure. The HS is essential God. People feinting and other antics in service .... not for me.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 4, 2015 23:54:23 GMT -5
The moderate Muslims should take back control of the Mosques and Islamic institutions. Fire the Medieval Imams from basket-case countries and tell the Saudis they will manage without their petro-dollars. I paid a visit just now to our local store owner who is from an Islamic background. I like her. Again:
"Fire the Medieval Imams from basket-case countries"
How would you feel if a Muslim told you to "Fire some of the "workers?"
If a worker was insisting on female genital mutilation and the cutting off of hands and feet, forbidding polio vaccines, teaching that Muslims and Jews are apes and swine and should be killed, and preaching that those leaving the faith should be killed, then I would agree that the worker should be removed from his position.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 5, 2015 2:29:09 GMT -5
Again:
"Fire the Medieval Imams from basket-case countries"
How would you feel if a Muslim told you to "Fire some of the "workers?"
If a worker was insisting on female genital mutilation and the cutting off of hands and feet, forbidding polio vaccines, teaching that Muslims and Jews are apes and swine and should be killed, and preaching that those leaving the faith should be killed, then I would agree that the worker should be removed from his position. Oh, Please!--- you just don't get it!
You just keep repeating the same all stuff over & over!
You just can't seem to see that by using that put down rhetoric of telling Muslims their religious leaders are "Medieval Imams from basket-case countries," and "nut cases" and other such other inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to help the Muslims who are trying gain control of what is going on in their religion!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 5, 2015 2:31:05 GMT -5
Sure. The HS is essential God. People feinting and other antics in service .... not for me. What does "HS" mean?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 8:06:34 GMT -5
I imagine moderate Muslims are not pleased that a Canadian man charged with terrorism, pleads to the jury today, that he should be tried by the Quran and not by "human" law, which he considers to be flawed. Alvin TORONTO – One of two men facing terrorism charges in an alleged plot to derail a passenger train offered his “sincere advice” to jurors hearing his case on Wednesday. The Criminal Code is a “book written by humans” and “humans are not perfect,” Chiheb Esseghaier said in a unusual written closing address. “That’s why I required the Holy Qur’an as unique reference of my trial and the judgement of all matter of people’s life,” he wrote to the jury. globalnews.ca/news/1863645/crown-argues-the-evidence-is-overwhelming-in-via-rail-terror-plot/Many Christians also do feel that the Bible is more correct than man-made laws. I can understand why a devout person would ask this, but of course it will go nowhere, as it should.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 8:10:37 GMT -5
In a perverse sense, I sort of like radical Islam because it puts a bee in the bonnet of the secular/humanist/atheist colonials. How are they gonna reconcile their great society of man to a man who wont reconcile. Nothing new there... they have the same problem with anti-evolution, science denying, right-to-life over unmeasurable suffering Christians.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 8:12:08 GMT -5
If a worker was insisting on female genital mutilation and the cutting off of hands and feet, forbidding polio vaccines, teaching that Muslims and Jews are apes and swine and should be killed, and preaching that those leaving the faith should be killed, then I would agree that the worker should be removed from his position. Oh, Please!--- you just don't get it!
You just keep repeating the same all stuff over & over!
You just can't seem to see that by using that put down rhetoric of telling Muslims their religious leaders are "Medieval Imams from basket-case countries," and "nut cases" and other such other inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to help the Muslims who are trying gain control of what is going on in their religion!
And how effective have the friends been in removing renegade workers?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 5, 2015 11:34:54 GMT -5
Here is one of the reasons I wish people would quit with all the Muslim put downs. It's leading to paranoia against all Muslims instead of focusing on those who are the reason for concern. Regular citizens that contribute, just want to live their lives etc. are now suffering and they can't do a thing about it. I would imagine that most people at the moment think this is okay and inevitable because of their religion. I don't. www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/03/disney-vacation-turns-to-nightmare-for-mississauga-family.html
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 5, 2015 11:55:52 GMT -5
Oh, Please!--- you just don't get it!
You just keep repeating the same all stuff over & over!
You just can't seem to see that by using that put down rhetoric of telling Muslims their religious leaders are "Medieval Imams from basket-case countries," and "nut cases" and other such other inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to help the Muslims who are trying gain control of what is going on in their religion!
And how effective have the friends been in removing renegade workers? Actually, the ineffectiveness of getting rid of workers should give people some understanding of how difficult it is for Muslims right now. The fear of speaking up, not just because they might get excommunicated, but because they could be killed. Seems a whole new level in comparison to not speaking up because you might get kicked out of the 2x2's. So maybe there can be some compassion for liberal and moderate Muslims that are also afraid to speak up? After all they are chancing more than their religion, they are chancing their lives. Look how it has been for any Muslim at the moment that has spoken up against ISIS publicly. They have all had death threats aimed at them and their loved ones.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 14:12:29 GMT -5
Here is one of the reasons I wish people would quit with all the Muslim put downs. It's leading to paranoia against all Muslims instead of focusing on those who are the reason for concern. Regular citizens that contribute, just want to live their lives etc. are now suffering and they can't do a thing about it. I would imagine that most people at the moment think this is okay and inevitable because of their religion. I don't. www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/03/disney-vacation-turns-to-nightmare-for-mississauga-family.htmlIt's a difficult task to discern between people like this family who want to share the benefit of our freedom, and their fellow Muslims who want to destroy our freedom. Better surveillance would help I think, but Liberals have a problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 5, 2015 14:36:38 GMT -5
Here is one of the reasons I wish people would quit with all the Muslim put downs. It's leading to paranoia against all Muslims instead of focusing on those who are the reason for concern. Regular citizens that contribute, just want to live their lives etc. are now suffering and they can't do a thing about it. I would imagine that most people at the moment think this is okay and inevitable because of their religion. I don't. www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/03/disney-vacation-turns-to-nightmare-for-mississauga-family.htmlIt's a difficult task to discern between people like this family who want to share the benefit of our freedom, and their fellow Muslims who want to destroy our freedom. Better surveillance would help I think, but Liberals have a problem with that. How is it difficult? He has a conference in the States, he has his whole family with him, he's never been in trouble with the law, he has so far been leading a law abiding life. We both know the reason why they were turned back and treated like common criminals. Their religion. How would more surveillance make it better? They already have all the rights to poke their noses into pretty much anything now. They have already taken pretty much all rights away from people as far as privacy goes. The Patriot act in the States pretty much took care of that. Now Harper our Prime Minister is trying to put in an equivalent to the Patriot Act in Canada with his Bill C-51. There is nothing wrong with fighting for our right to privacy or protest. We just think that handing all our current rights over to the government is going to keep us safe? Not a chance in hell is that true.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 14:50:44 GMT -5
It's a difficult task to discern between people like this family who want to share the benefit of our freedom, and their fellow Muslims who want to destroy our freedom. Better surveillance would help I think, but Liberals have a problem with that. How is it difficult? He has a conference in the States, he has his whole family with him, he's never been in trouble with the law, he has so far been leading a law abiding life. We both know the reason why they were turned back and treated like common criminals. Their religion. How would more surveillance make it better? They already have all the rights to poke their noses into pretty much anything now. They have already taken pretty much all rights away from people as far as privacy goes. The Patriot act in the States pretty much took care of that. Now Harper our Prime Minister is trying to put in an equivalent to the Patriot Act in Canada with his Bill C-51. There is nothing wrong with fighting for our right to privacy or protest. We just think that handing all our current rights over to the government is going to keep us safe? Not a chance in hell is that true. What criteria do you think the authorities should use to differentiate between this man and folks like the Boston bombers? Having the family with him is no guarantee of his innocence - many Islamic wives and daughters encourage terrorism. Did the authorities have ready access to criminal records from Iraq, Qatar, Dubai and Canada? I expect not, so they would have known less about this family than you do. If we want authorities to make better decisions around who is allowed to cross international borders we have to give them better tools to do their jobs. Complaining about surveillance is counter-productive. How do you think we should differentiate between the Muslims who want to destroy us and the Muslims who don't want to destroy us?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 14:51:20 GMT -5
Here is one of the reasons I wish people would quit with all the Muslim put downs. It's leading to paranoia against all Muslims instead of focusing on those who are the reason for concern. Regular citizens that contribute, just want to live their lives etc. are now suffering and they can't do a thing about it. I would imagine that most people at the moment think this is okay and inevitable because of their religion. I don't. www.thestar.com/news/immigration/2015/03/03/disney-vacation-turns-to-nightmare-for-mississauga-family.htmlIt's a difficult task to discern between people like this family who want to share the benefit of our freedom, and their fellow Muslims who want to destroy our freedom. Better surveillance would help I think, but Liberals have a problem with that. Well, no. There is no inordinately high risk to simply being a Muslim. We can't bias these kinds of decisions on race or religion. In the picture below, who is more likely to be a criminal?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 14:53:24 GMT -5
It's a difficult task to discern between people like this family who want to share the benefit of our freedom, and their fellow Muslims who want to destroy our freedom. Better surveillance would help I think, but Liberals have a problem with that. Well, no. There is no inordinately high risk to simply being a Muslim. We can't bias these kinds of decisions on race or religion. In the picture below, who is more likely to be a criminal? What does the data say?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 14:56:37 GMT -5
How is it difficult? He has a conference in the States, he has his whole family with him, he's never been in trouble with the law, he has so far been leading a law abiding life. We both know the reason why they were turned back and treated like common criminals. Their religion. How would more surveillance make it better? They already have all the rights to poke their noses into pretty much anything now. They have already taken pretty much all rights away from people as far as privacy goes. The Patriot act in the States pretty much took care of that. Now Harper our Prime Minister is trying to put in an equivalent to the Patriot Act in Canada with his Bill C-51. There is nothing wrong with fighting for our right to privacy or protest. We just think that handing all our current rights over to the government is going to keep us safe? Not a chance in hell is that true. What criteria do you think the authorities should use to differentiate between this man and folks like the Boston bombers? Having the family with him is no guarantee of his innocence - many Islamic wives and daughters encourage terrorism. Did the authorities have ready access to criminal records from Iraq, Qatar, Dubai and Canada? I expect not, so they would have known less about this family than you do. If we want authorities to make better decisions around who is allowed to cross international borders we have to give them better tools to do their jobs. Complaining about surveillance is counter-productive. How do you think we should differentiate between the Muslims who want to destroy us and the Muslims who don't want to destroy us? What about Muslims who don't wear a veil? What do you do about them? Perhaps we should make them sew a crescent into their sleeves and require that they wear that at all times under penalty of jail time. Perhaps we should restrict their travel, make them live in a certain part of a city, and build a wall around them. The fact is, the man and his family are not from Qatar or Iraq. They are CANADIAN CITIZENS and border security have complete access to their immigration files. They should be treated the same as any other Canadian citizen going into the USA.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 15:26:26 GMT -5
The fact is, the man and his family are not from Qatar or Iraq. They are CANADIAN CITIZENS and border security have complete access to their immigration files. They should be treated the same as any other Canadian citizen going into the USA. Can you put your hand on your heart and assure me that Canadian citizens would never mount a terrorist attack? This man is from Iraq and Quatar as well as Canada - and visited contacts in Dubai I don't know all the details of this case and why the authorities made the decisions they did, but I'm not as quick to condemn them. With millions of people crossing borders every day I doubt effective policing would be possible without some kind of profiling. This family will realise the behaviour of their fellow Muslims has done them no favours. Better surveillance could give the authorities more confidence to discern between Muslims that appreciate our freedoms and Muslims who want to destroy our freedoms.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 16:17:57 GMT -5
The fact is, the man and his family are not from Qatar or Iraq. They are CANADIAN CITIZENS and border security have complete access to their immigration files. They should be treated the same as any other Canadian citizen going into the USA. Can you put your hand on your heart and assure me that Canadian citizens would never mount a terrorist attack? This man is from Iraq and Quatar as well as Canada - and visited contacts in Dubai I don't know all the details of this case and why the authorities made the decisions they did, but I'm not as quick to condemn them. With millions of people crossing borders every day I doubt effective policing would be possible without some kind of profiling. This family will realise the behaviour of their fellow Muslims has done them no favours. Better surveillance could give the authorities more confidence to discern between Muslims that appreciate our freedoms and Muslims who want to destroy our freedoms. I think you can't know much about police/ race relations in North America to say what you're saying. It's a very bad situation with police and the African-American population, and you really don't want the profiling issues that exist with blacks to migrate to Muslims and whoever else is next in line. The 'Earl Sampson' case in the USA, where cops were habitually arresting a low intelligence Afro-American male for trespassing in order to meet arrest quotas, is an anomaly, but it shows that police and customs can't really be trusted without proper outside controls in place. www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article1957716.htmlI've heard enough and know enough about police behaviour first hand to not trust how they handle either visual minorities or Muslims/ Arabs. Vigilance and oversight is required to make sure they do the right thing. To implement what you're suggesting, you'd essentially be giving the bullies within customs a licence to act out their prejudices, even more than they already do.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 16:23:11 GMT -5
Well, no. There is no inordinately high risk to simply being a Muslim. We can't bias these kinds of decisions on race or religion. In the picture below, who is more likely to be a criminal? What does the data say? You can't judge a book by its cover. They have enough information to make an informed decision about the INDIVIDUAL. If you live a clean and honest life then you shouldn't be harassed by police or by customs no matter your religion or your race. Yet, for visible minorities the very opposite is the case.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 16:45:03 GMT -5
You can't act out your hate for a group and also expect them not to hate you.
There are many Muslims living peacefully in Canada, and we've had maybe 2 people killed by terrorists. If you want to list the threats to public safety terrorism is way down the list, and does not warrant profiling certain groups in police or customs behaviour. The consequences of profiling as this family experienced are far greater than the reduction in risk, if in fact there even is any reduction in terrorism risk at all from profiling.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 16:49:32 GMT -5
You can't judge a book by its cover. They have enough information to make an informed decision about the INDIVIDUAL. If you live a clean and honest life then you shouldn't be harassed by police or by customs no matter your religion or your race. Yet, for visible minorities the very opposite is the case. I agree - you can't judge a book by its cover. Unfortunately profiling is necessary for the authorities to do their jobs. It's the Pareto principle. I'm plucking numbers out of my head here, but if 95% of terrorist attacks were from Muslims, and 95% of air travellers were non-Muslims, guess where most of the screening effort will go? We don't know enough about this case. This guy may have been flagged by authorities in any of the countries he's been in. He may have donated to a charity that funds terrorism, he may have relatives that are terrorism sympathisers, he may have attended a Mosque where the Imam preaches that Jews and Christians are apes and swine and all should be killed to the very last one (along with any Muslim who leaves the religion). Terrorists may have been radicalised in the Mosque this guy attended. Innocent people are going to suffer in order to minimise the risk of a terror attack like the Boston bombing. That's sad, but not as sad as the thousands of innocent people who have been killed in Islamist attacks. If Disneyland was attacked the authorities would be under scrutiny for not preventing it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 16:51:40 GMT -5
You can't act out your hate for a group and also expect them not to hate you. There are many Muslims living peacefully in Canada, and we've had maybe 2 people killed by terrorists. If you want to list the threats to public safety terrorism is way down the list, and does not warrant profiling certain groups in police or customs behaviour. The consequences of profiling as this family experienced are far greater than the reduction in risk, if in fact there even is any reduction in terrorism risk at all from profiling. Wasn't this family turned away by US authorities? Thousands of innocent Americans have died at the hands of innocent-looking Islamist Jihadis.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 17:00:39 GMT -5
You can't act out your hate for a group and also expect them not to hate you. There are many Muslims living peacefully in Canada, and we've had maybe 2 people killed by terrorists. If you want to list the threats to public safety terrorism is way down the list, and does not warrant profiling certain groups in police or customs behaviour. The consequences of profiling as this family experienced are far greater than the reduction in risk, if in fact there even is any reduction in terrorism risk at all from profiling. This family should realise that this is a price to be paid in order to protect the population from their fellow Muslims. This is nothing to do with hate for Muslims. It's about keeping the population safe. Here's what Wiki has to say about recent Islamic attacks in Canada:
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 17:47:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 17:53:40 GMT -5
You can't judge a book by its cover. They have enough information to make an informed decision about the INDIVIDUAL. If you live a clean and honest life then you shouldn't be harassed by police or by customs no matter your religion or your race. Yet, for visible minorities the very opposite is the case. I agree - you can't judge a book by its cover. Unfortunately profiling is necessary for the authorities to do their jobs. It's the Pareto principle. I'm plucking numbers out of my head here, but if 95% of terrorist attacks were from Muslims, and 95% of air travellers were non-Muslims, guess where most of the screening effort will go? We don't know enough about this case. This guy may have been flagged by authorities in any of the countries he's been in. He may have donated to a charity that funds terrorism, he may have relatives that are terrorism sympathisers, he may have attended a Mosque where the Imam preaches that Jews and Christians are apes and swine and all should be killed to the very last one (along with any Muslim who leaves the religion). Terrorists may have been radicalised in the Mosque this guy attended. Innocent people are going to suffer in order to minimise the risk of a terror attack like the Boston bombing. That's sad, but not as sad as the thousands of innocent people who have been killed in Islamist attacks. If Disneyland was attacked the authorities would be under scrutiny for not preventing it. Right off the top of my head 95% of attacks are not Muslim. Boston Marathon and Oklahoma City are two high profile examples that were not. And we kill many more people in industrial and environmental accidents, such as Lac Megantic, than through terrorism. I don't believe profiling helps. Do you think it's justified for police to routinely pull over young American blacks and search their vehicles?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 17:56:40 GMT -5
You can't act out your hate for a group and also expect them not to hate you. There are many Muslims living peacefully in Canada, and we've had maybe 2 people killed by terrorists. If you want to list the threats to public safety terrorism is way down the list, and does not warrant profiling certain groups in police or customs behaviour. The consequences of profiling as this family experienced are far greater than the reduction in risk, if in fact there even is any reduction in terrorism risk at all from profiling. This family should realise that this is a price to be paid in order to protect the population from their fellow Muslims. This is nothing to do with hate for Muslims. It's about keeping the population safe. Here's what Wiki has to say about recent Islamic attacks in Canada: Not hateful? The lack of empathy is astounding. You can't make hundreds of thousands pay for the acts of a single individual.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 5, 2015 17:58:24 GMT -5
I thought the assassins were Chechen.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 19:21:06 GMT -5
Right off the top of my head 95% of attacks are not Muslim. Boston Marathon and Oklahoma City are two high profile examples that were not. Oklahoma City was not a Muslim attack, but that was a long time ago now. Boston Marathon was definitely an Islamic Jihadi attack. We all pay a price for protecting our populations against Muslim Jihadis. What percentage of terrorist attacks against Western countries do you think are Islamist?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 5, 2015 21:43:17 GMT -5
How is it difficult? He has a conference in the States, he has his whole family with him, he's never been in trouble with the law, he has so far been leading a law abiding life. We both know the reason why they were turned back and treated like common criminals. Their religion. How would more surveillance make it better? They already have all the rights to poke their noses into pretty much anything now. They have already taken pretty much all rights away from people as far as privacy goes. The Patriot act in the States pretty much took care of that. Now Harper our Prime Minister is trying to put in an equivalent to the Patriot Act in Canada with his Bill C-51. There is nothing wrong with fighting for our right to privacy or protest. We just think that handing all our current rights over to the government is going to keep us safe? Not a chance in hell is that true. What criteria do you think the authorities should use to differentiate between this man and folks like the Boston bombers? Having the family with him is no guarantee of his innocence - many Islamic wives and daughters encourage terrorism. Did the authorities have ready access to criminal records from Iraq, Qatar, Dubai and Canada? I expect not, so they would have known less about this family than you do. If we want authorities to make better decisions around who is allowed to cross international borders we have to give them better tools to do their jobs. Complaining about surveillance is counter-productive. How do you think we should differentiate between the Muslims who want to destroy us and the Muslims who don't want to destroy us? They have access to Canadian criminal records at the border. I know that for sure. Other countries I don't know that answer. But is the answer to stop all Muslims from crossing borders, just because they are Muslim? This is beginning to sound more and more like how it started with the Jews in Germany. They kept taking away rights, started small and ended up with taking away their right to live. Where are we going with this? Is it worth upsetting the entire Muslim population because a jihadist might do something in your country? I don't know, but I'm leaning very strongly towards, no it isn't.
|
|