|
Post by fixit on Mar 5, 2015 22:24:56 GMT -5
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. The entire population of Muslims won't be upset over the occasional refusal to cross borders. They will accept that as a small price to pay for security from the enormous damage some of their fellow Muslims are trying to wreak. If they were in any Muslim-majority country they would have less rights. I'm not seeing that there's a fair comparison with Jews in Germany. Thousands of Rabbis were not inciting their congregations to declare war against non-Jews.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 5, 2015 22:36:47 GMT -5
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. The entire population of Muslims won't be upset over the occasional refusal to cross borders. They will accept that as a small price to pay for security from the enormous damage some of their fellow Muslims are trying to wreak. If they were in any Muslim-majority country they would have less rights. I'm not seeing that there's a fair comparison with Jews in Germany. Thousands of Rabbis were not inciting their congregations to declare war against non-Jews. You've missed the point about Jews in Germany. The way we end up doing horrific things is usually in small incremental steps. We may think it's okay to restrict the rights of Muslims to cross borders today, what will it be tomorrow? You have to remember that the German people felt that everything evil and wrong with the world was because of the Jews. Sound familiar? Whether it's true or not isn't the point. It's what people believe that is the point and we know where it can lead. So would Christians accept that it is a small price to pay for security if fellow Christians were doing horrific things? In Africa there are Christians killing Muslims. www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.htmlwww.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/10/central-african-republic-christian-militias-revenge
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 5, 2015 23:16:04 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? The blonde in the red sweater!
She has been in jail already!
She Has a Criminal record to prove it!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 5, 2015 23:59:01 GMT -5
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/muslim-blind-hug-social-experiment-youtube_n_6656558.htmlwww.youtube.com/watch?v=aysp_WdaNFAMuslim man stands blindfolded , I trust you, do you trust me, experiment in Canada. Good to watch and see lack of islamphobia in so many people. Often we just concentrate on the negative, which does exist, and miss the good. On another heartwarming note for me was visiting with an aboriginal woman last week who has lived 6 to seven years of her life in Winnipeg, which has been accused of being the most racist city in Canada, by some. I asked her if she felt she had been subjected to racism while living there. She said, of course, there were people who didn't like her or disagreed with her or whatever, but for herself had not viewed or understood that she had been a victum of racism there. She admitted, it likely was connected with her NOT living a high risk lifestyle. Was encouraging to speak with her, and appreciated her views on some of the issues discussed. She is an RCMP officer, and sees a lot of "stuff", and admitted she does NOT like dealing with drunks and people who lie to her................. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 6, 2015 0:24:45 GMT -5
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/muslim-blind-hug-social-experiment-youtube_n_6656558.htmlwww.youtube.com/watch?v=aysp_WdaNFAMuslim man stands blindfolded , I trust you, do you trust me, experiment in Canada. Good to watch and see lack of islamphobia in so many people. Often we just concentrate on the negative, which does exist, and miss the good. On another heartwarming note for me was visiting with an aboriginal woman last week who has lived 6 to seven years of her life in Winnipeg, which has been accused of being the most racist city in Canada, by some. I asked her if she felt she had been subjected to racism while living there. She said, of course, there were people who didn't like her or disagreed with her or whatever, but for herself had not viewed or understood that she had been a victum of racism there. She admitted, it likely was connected with her NOT living a high risk lifestyle. Was encouraging to speak with her, and appreciated her views on some of the issues discussed. She is an RCMP officer, and sees a lot of "stuff", and admitted she does NOT like dealing with drunks and people who lie to her................. Alvin Thanks for that Alvin. I think all things considered Muslims are treated very well in the West. If they stopped trying to kill us there wouldn't be a problem. Islamophobia is a silly word. It's like saying many Muslims are Westernphobic.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 6, 2015 0:43:15 GMT -5
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/muslim-blind-hug-social-experiment-youtube_n_6656558.htmlwww.youtube.com/watch?v=aysp_WdaNFAMuslim man stands blindfolded , I trust you, do you trust me, experiment in Canada. Good to watch and see lack of islamphobia in so many people. Often we just concentrate on the negative, which does exist, and miss the good. On another heartwarming note for me was visiting with an aboriginal woman last week who has lived 6 to seven years of her life in Winnipeg, which has been accused of being the most racist city in Canada, by some. I asked her if she felt she had been subjected to racism while living there. She said, of course, there were people who didn't like her or disagreed with her or whatever, but for herself had not viewed or understood that she had been a victum of racism there. She admitted, it likely was connected with her NOT living a high risk lifestyle. Was encouraging to speak with her, and appreciated her views on some of the issues discussed. She is an RCMP officer, and sees a lot of "stuff", and admitted she does NOT like dealing with drunks and people who lie to her................. Alvin Thanks for that Alvin. I think all things considered Muslims are treated very well in the West. If they stopped trying to kill us there wouldn't be a problem. Islamophobia is a silly word. It's like saying many Muslims are Westernphobic. That is EXACTLY what YOU have been saying about Muslims right here on this thread,over & over again, fixit!
That Muslims are Westernphobic!
Just take a look aback at your own posts!
PS: A BIG QUESTION! Would you have went up to that man and given him a hug? www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/muslim-blind-hug-social-experiment-youtube_n_6656558.html www.youtube.com/watch?v=aysp_WdaNFA
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 6, 2015 1:21:55 GMT -5
Oklahoma City was not a Muslim attack, but that was a long time ago now. What is the time frame when a terrorist attack can be discounted?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 6, 2015 1:32:26 GMT -5
Oklahoma City was not a Muslim attack, but that was a long time ago now. What is the time frame when a terrorist attack can be discounted? It's more relevant to consider the pattern of attacks.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 6, 2015 1:36:42 GMT -5
PS: A BIG QUESTION! Would you have went up to that man and given him a hug? Yes. I don't have a problem with Muslims, it's their hatred for Jews, Christians, Atheists, Secularists and human rights that I don't like.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 6, 2015 2:14:42 GMT -5
PS: A BIG QUESTION! Would you have went up to that man and given him a hug? Yes. I don't have a problem with Muslims, it's their hatred for Jews, Christians, Atheists, Secularists and human rights that I don't like. I don't have a problem with Christians, -it's only when they show their hatred for Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Secularists and human rights, then that gets me a bit upset.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 6, 2015 4:44:33 GMT -5
I respect Muslims who support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I think all immigrants and refugees should swear allegiance to it as a condition of residency.
Those who don't, should go live in Islamic-majority countries where they can live in their own culture.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 6, 2015 5:13:13 GMT -5
I respect Muslims who support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think all immigrants and refugees should swear allegiance to it as a condition of residency. Those who don't, should go live in Islamic-majority countries where they can live in their own culture. Do you also think all those people already living in every country should have to swear allegiance to it as a condition for continuing their residency in their own country?
Somewhat like the era of McCarthyism? "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"
In the 1950s, thousands of Americans who toiled in the government, served in the army, worked in the movie industry, or came from various walks of life had to answer that question before a congressional panel.
During his investigations, safeguards promised by the Constitution were trampled.Would you have supported McCarthy?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a great document but not even the residents & the even so-called democratic governments adhere to it in it's entirety !
For one, The USA government hasn't done so!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 6, 2015 6:54:33 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? There are measures against terrorism that are effective and that are worth the price in the public's eyes. Preventing a respectable, harmless and innocent family from going to Disney World because they are Muslim should not be part of the price for my safety. It doesn't even add anything to my safety,and happened because someone or ones in US Customs are bigots. How does stopping this family keep us safe?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 6, 2015 7:10:17 GMT -5
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. Your last point is a very significant one. If we want to help moderate Muslims and assist Islam in moving toward moderation and modernity, and if we wish to live peacefully with the Muslims in our country, then we can't punish the many for the actions of a few. There are over a billion Muslims on the planet, many sects and a few dozen countries, most of them represented in Canada. Terrorism is not a significant threat here. Escalating bigotry will have a far worse effect than doing nothing. This doesn't mean we don't protect ourselves against terrorism, but no profiling or punishing the entire group. If we experience a significant threat from a small definable population, such as travellers to the Levant, that all changes. No need to punish Canadian Muslim families going to Disney World.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 6, 2015 7:20:30 GMT -5
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/muslim-blind-hug-social-experiment-youtube_n_6656558.htmlwww.youtube.com/watch?v=aysp_WdaNFAMuslim man stands blindfolded , I trust you, do you trust me, experiment in Canada. Good to watch and see lack of islamphobia in so many people. Often we just concentrate on the negative, which does exist, and miss the good. On another heartwarming note for me was visiting with an aboriginal woman last week who has lived 6 to seven years of her life in Winnipeg, which has been accused of being the most racist city in Canada, by some. I asked her if she felt she had been subjected to racism while living there. She said, of course, there were people who didn't like her or disagreed with her or whatever, but for herself had not viewed or understood that she had been a victum of racism there. She admitted, it likely was connected with her NOT living a high risk lifestyle. Was encouraging to speak with her, and appreciated her views on some of the issues discussed. She is an RCMP officer, and sees a lot of "stuff", and admitted she does NOT like dealing with drunks and people who lie to her................. Alvin Thanks for that Alvin. I think all things considered Muslims are treated very well in the West. If they stopped trying to kill us there wouldn't be a problem. Islamophobia is a silly word. It's like saying many Muslims are Westernphobic. The do well because of our laws and the Constitution which grant all individuals in Canada certain rights. But we have to make sure they keep those rights, and there's an active lobby trying to take them away.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 6, 2015 7:24:39 GMT -5
I respect Muslims who support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think all immigrants and refugees should swear allegiance to it as a condition of residency. Those who don't, should go live in Islamic-majority countries where they can live in their own culture. Do you also think all those people already living in every country should have to swear allegiance to it as a condition for continuing their residency in their own country?
Somewhat like the era of McCarthyism? "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"
In the 1950s, thousands of Americans who toiled in the government, served in the army, worked in the movie industry, or came from various walks of life had to answer that question before a congressional panel.
During his investigations, safeguards promised by the Constitution were trampled.Would you have supported McCarthy?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a great document but not even the residents & the even so-called democratic governments adhere to it in it's entirety !
For one, The USA government hasn't done so! Islam is the new Communism. Remember the movie "The Russians are Coming". We have to deal logically with threats but sometimes we become ruled by fear.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 6, 2015 10:06:26 GMT -5
www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/muslim-blind-hug-social-experiment-youtube_n_6656558.htmlwww.youtube.com/watch?v=aysp_WdaNFAMuslim man stands blindfolded , I trust you, do you trust me, experiment in Canada. Good to watch and see lack of islamphobia in so many people. Often we just concentrate on the negative, which does exist, and miss the good. On another heartwarming note for me was visiting with an aboriginal woman last week who has lived 6 to seven years of her life in Winnipeg, which has been accused of being the most racist city in Canada, by some. I asked her if she felt she had been subjected to racism while living there. She said, of course, there were people who didn't like her or disagreed with her or whatever, but for herself had not viewed or understood that she had been a victum of racism there. She admitted, it likely was connected with her NOT living a high risk lifestyle. Was encouraging to speak with her, and appreciated her views on some of the issues discussed. She is an RCMP officer, and sees a lot of "stuff", and admitted she does NOT like dealing with drunks and people who lie to her................. Alvin Part of the First Nations problem is a culture of dependency which we have helped to foster. Basically, the idea was to give the First Nations $5 billion a year for basic services because we felt guilty for past injustices. That simply hasn't worked. I believe the move a few decades ago toward respecting First Nations autonomy was a good one, although there have been abuses in some bands. Other bands have done incredible work in stepping up to shoulder responsibility for their well being and also the sustainability of their culture and their livelihood. Racism, as it exists today, has to be looked at in the context of demanding mutual respect between equals, not as appeasement or a bone to those who have been victimised in the past. So, for example, more aboriginal participation in the Winnipeg police force would be a very good thing. Increasing social assistance? Not so much. I wonder what your RCMP officer friend would think about how best to assist young aboriginal women who have adopted a high risk lifestyle on the streets of Winnipeg. That is a really tough problem.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 6, 2015 10:22:29 GMT -5
PS: A BIG QUESTION! Would you have went up to that man and given him a hug? Yes. I don't have a problem with Muslims, it's their hatred for Jews, Christians, Atheists, Secularists and human rights that I don't like. There are aspects of Muslim culture that we don't find acceptable here in Canada. Women are not as emancipated as they should be. We generally do not like the full face covering, although most people have no problem with a hijab covering the hair. After all, they're by no means the first culture who believe women's heads should be covered. Shunning, and worse, honour killings of young women who adopt a more modern lifestyle are particularly reprehensible. Hatred of homosexuals and killing of apostates are all reprehensible beliefs that do not fit in well here. I think there are things that can be done about this while maintaining an atmosphere of tolerance and respect for individual autonomy. Maintaining tolerance and autonomy and human rights do not mean that we have to "like" or "accept" beliefs we find reprehensible. Some years ago, Dutch immigration switched their "new immigrant" education program to show Muslim immigrants that: homosexuals can marry, prostitution is legal, young people can do what they want and are protected in law, women can drive cars, and so on. You don't have to live by these things (e.g. legalized prostitution) but you better learn to tolerate them if you want to live here. Most Muslim young people will shed some of this cultural nonsense over a generation or two. A valid criticism of multiculturalism is that we may not be explicit enough about the values we are moving them to. Even existing natives of Canada do not understand our Constitution and our basic values, so how can we expect new Canadians to explicate or understand what is required of them.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Mar 6, 2015 10:29:08 GMT -5
I respect Muslims who support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I think all immigrants and refugees should swear allegiance to it as a condition of residency. Those who don't, should go live in Islamic-majority countries where they can live in their own culture. I agree with that. Actually in our case, it would be the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was built with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a model. Not only that, but I think new Canadian citizens should take a series of courses on the Charter and the Constitution and should swear allegiance to it as a condition of citizenship. There are residency situations that won't require it, such as student visas. However, it should also be tied in to 'permanent residency' (formerly called, 'landed immigrant') on some basis.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 6, 2015 10:51:08 GMT -5
What is the time frame when a terrorist attack can be discounted? It's more relevant to consider the pattern of attacks. How many attacks are you considering? How many attacks using, for example, improvised explosive devices are you considering? What time frame? And what about car and truck bombings? Airline bombings/hijackings. Does the pattern matter? Does the motive? What was the motive for the killings at Columbine? Does that classify as a terrorist attack? Was there a pattern between Columbine and Bath, MI?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 6, 2015 15:07:41 GMT -5
It's more relevant to consider the pattern of attacks. How many attacks are you considering? How many attacks using, for example, improvised explosive devices are you considering? What time frame? And what about car and truck bombings? Airline bombings/hijackings. Does the pattern matter? Does the motive? What was the motive for the killings at Columbine? Does that classify as a terrorist attack? Was there a pattern between Columbine and Bath, MI? These are questions security professionals ask. Like it or not, profiling has probably always been a strategy they've used. If most cars were stolen by black males between 15 and 25, that demographic would receive special attention. If most school shootings were committed by white loners who were bullied in school, couldn't get girl friends and published hateful messages on Facebook, that demographic would receive special attention. If most terrorist attacks were committed by Muslims who attended certain Mosques and travelled to certain countries, they would receive special attention. If most organised crime came from people of Italian descent with links to Sicily, they would receive special attention. (Disclaimer: the above is pulled out of the air for illustrative purposes only.)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 6, 2015 21:47:55 GMT -5
Has anyone looked at the recent federal report coming out of the Ferguson Missouri incident?
Has anyone noted the fact that in some areas the funding for police forces are augmented by the number of arrests made by the department?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 6, 2015 23:29:57 GMT -5
Has anyone looked at all the good things Governments in Canada and USA are doing?
Has anyone noted that millions of people are happily getting on with their lives, enjoying more peace and freedom and prosperity than the vast majority of humankind has enjoyed down through history?
It's good to keep people accountable by exposing and discussing issues and concerns, but let's not lose sight of the enormous progress that's been made in the last 70 years due to the positive effects of American leadership of the free world.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 6, 2015 23:50:29 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. They as in secular/humanist/atheist. How are they going to reconcile the man "Islam" who won't reconcile? By and large Christians have operated within a mostly pluralistic structure, not so with radical Islam. Their holy grail is a theocracy epitomized by submission, not love.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 7, 2015 0:23:52 GMT -5
Nothing new there... they have the same problem with anti-evolution, science denying, right-to-life over unmeasurable suffering Christians. They as in secular/humanist/atheist. How are they going to reconcile the man "Islam" who won't reconcile? By and large Christians have operated within a mostly pluralistic structure, not so with radical Islam. Their holy grail is a theocracy epitomized by submission, not love. It's interesting that the Liberal press has no problem with human rights being trampled on by Muslims, yet anyone who exposes or discusses the appalling Islamic human rights record is immediately labelled "Islamophobic". I don't understand why liberals are not more supportive of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Is world peace possible without universal buy-in of this important document?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 7, 2015 1:04:41 GMT -5
It's good to keep people accountable by exposing and discussing issues and concerns, but let's not lose sight of the enormous progress that's been made in the last 70 years due to the positive effects of American leadership of the free world. Shouldn't the government also be kept accountable? Remember that the USA's leadership included the support of some dictators including Batista, the Shah of Iran, Museveni, Park Chung-hee, Marcos, Ngo Dinh Diem, Pinochet, and Papadopoulos, just to name a few, plus messing with the internal affairs of Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Colombia, etc. Of course there are the accusations of violation of international laws. This is not to take away from the positive actions you mentioned. There are two sides.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 7, 2015 1:10:12 GMT -5
It's good to keep people accountable by exposing and discussing issues and concerns, but let's not lose sight of the enormous progress that's been made in the last 70 years due to the positive effects of American leadership of the free world. Shouldn't the government also be kept accountable? Remember that the USA's leadership included the support of some dictators including Batista, the Shah of Iran, Museveni, Park Chung-hee, Marcos, Ngo Dinh Diem, Pinochet, and Papadopoulos, just to name a few, plus messing with the internal affairs of Guatemala, Chile, Cuba, Colombia, etc. Of course there are the accusations of violation of international laws. This is not to take away from the positive actions you mentioned. There are two sides. In international politics you have to hold your nose and deal with unsavoury regimes as best you can. An alliance with Stalin's regime is another example.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 7, 2015 1:16:23 GMT -5
In international politics you have to hold your nose and deal with unsavoury regimes as best you can. Deal with them? The US supported them, And that support caused a lot of problems. You imposed a 70 year limit.
|
|