Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Rue

Members
  • Content Count

    10,731
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Rue last won the day on January 11

Rue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

821 Excellent

2 Followers

About Rue

  • Rank
    Rue

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,112 profile views
  1. Eye..I do note .these references to wrong or right thrown at you. Ah.. sure we have differences of opinion and so how does that make us right or wrong?. Could it be anyone who has to declare themselves "right" and someone else "wrong" on a discussion forum is insecure about their own opinions being "right" so they pose them that way? So..with that said..I say to you...when you disagree with me and we will you have nothing to apologize for. Question and challenge every frigging word I say. Good for you. Last time I looked I was a shmuck like anyone else. If I become a divine infallible source of pure essence I will let you know. Don't think it will happen. I am no prophet. For me the way we use prophets in history they seem to be bearded men who wear sandals and have epilepsy or maybe 3rd stage cerebral syphilis or schizophrenia or other interesting personalities. Call me a cynic but Trudeau as become bearded and this is not a good sign. If he climbs the Rocky Mountains and tells of visions, be very careful of what he asks of you. I do not think he can part anyone's waters let alone their hair. As for this thread, it started off pointing out negative behaviour of specific Muslims in Canada linked to immigration and refugee policies and look how far the thread has drifted from the actual topic-that is because the original premises is not sustainable. The crowning achievement on this thread for me Eye I believe was when I was told in response to and for debating Muslims should not be negatively generalized by the behaviour of a minority of them, was the comment of a reference that suggested my argument but then mean most Germans were good people during WW2. This is why we Jews invented the Yiddish word OY not to be confused with Irish or Welsh or Scottish or Cockney individuals who are saying Hi. Yes Germany was a civilized nation. It was a nation of artists, scientists, scholars. Imagine anyone thinking it would produce Nazis but it did and precisely because it did it showed "good" or "civilized" people quickly turn into indecent inhumane people capable of carrying out a holocaust precisely because they bought into a group cognitive process that made sweeping negative generalizations about a particular people to justify dehumanizing that people as a way to unify the majority and get them to follow their leader by making themselves feel good about themselves by having a targeted group they could all hate. The lesson insight that poster did not grasp from Hitler was that negative generalizations make it possible and easy to dehumanize and hate the targeted group to then make it so easy to kill, hurt or discriminate and become emmersed in inhumane behaviour. That was the most basic of ideas the poster could not fathom. He could not fathom it was not just Germans, but Europeans in numerous countries that engaged in this exercise to enable the holocaust and that yes they were all good people and in all good people are evil people as well. He does not appear to understand negative stereotypes of Jews in Europe had gone on for over 2000 years leading to mass killings and constant persecution and Hitler simply took that pre-existing negative stereotyping and recycled it to build a unifying element for his agenda. Then again this was the same person lecturing me that Jews should negatively stereotype all Muslims because they hate Jews and as a Jew I should know better. I guess what I and probably every Jew knows although I do not speak for them or claim to is that our history has shown us negative generalizations come from the very same cognitive process as the one being used against Muslims on this thread. It is precisely because we have been the targets of it we would know what causes it. It is precisely for that reason as tempting as it is for us to repeat that behaviour towards our perceived enemies we can not lest we run the risk of becoming the very people we were targeted by. Its precisely why as a Zionist, I was taught, that concept meant creating a state organ to guarantee our protection from discrimination but we can not use that organ which protects us from hurting others and when it does we must reflect and reform. This is why I fight negative generalizations of those who think they know what anti-semitism is, what Zionism is, and presume to tell we Jews who we hate or should hate or that we hate. As a Zionist I was taught Muslims and Christians are not inferior to us. The State of Israel provides Christians and Muslims the right to their own land titles and religious and family laws. It provides the same legal rights to Muslims as it does non Jews. It has at times been forced because of terrorism to implement security regulations that people outside Israel perceive as discriminatory and unfair to all Palestinians. They can be. They also discriminate the same way against all Jews and Christians. Everyone is subject to a search and delay. No one can be sure who is good or bad but Israel copes in a far more complex manner with terrorists and Muslims far different than in Canada. Israel can not engage in the same simplistic generalizations as some on this forum or it could not detect terrorists. Israeli laws and regulations are far more complex as it the methods it detects possible security issues. Sometimes those anti-terrorist measures can prove excessive, unfair, hurt the wrong people. It creates a phenomena where many Palestinians only engage with the IDF under negative circumstances so form negative generalizations about all IDF soldiers and Israelis. Some Jews in Israel, particularly a segment of what we call Biblical Zionists engage in negative generalizations about all Muslims. Lieberman and certain politicians enunciate negative stereotypes about Muslims. Muslim politicians elected in the Knesset and Palestinian leaders do the same in reverse. Neither side is right or wrong but they are caught in a never ending cycle of negative generalizations that need to be defused if peace will ever come about. I have never argued hate all Muslims as a solution to anything for Israel. I challenge Muslims on this forum who do not believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state but maintain Muslims can have Muslim states. To me that is illogical and inconsistent and a double standard. The fact I argue that and reject the use of terrorism by Muslims does not mean I hate all Muslims even those who use their religion to justify their beliefs Jews are dhimmi and so can not have a country or own land. I appeal to moderate Muslims who respect the right of Jews to have their own country and live free of terrorism because they are the people Zionists are taught to assist and live next to as allies in taming the desert not fight with over the land. In the ideal Middle East, Beduins should be able to cross borders as they always have in their never ending movement. Other Muslims, Jews and Christians should be able to live in nations where Jews have their nation, Muslims have their nations, and Christians have access to all their holy sites and their land rights are respected and Druze, Bahaii, Zoroastrians, Kurds, other sects and religions are respected. I enunciate based on mutual respect not hatred. I take of grass roots policies to build that tolerance based on building and sharing water irrigation systems, electric systems, harbour and airport access and free common markets of trade and exchange of technology and medical care and help. I apply the same principles when talking about building Canada. That is neither left or right, correct or incorrect. Its just a perspective that builds on mutual respect and needs. Its not based on a particular ideology. For me the pith and substance of this thread and its not a matter of being right or wrong or politically correct, is how we rationally create government policies or deal with terrorism or security issues without engaging in exercises that could turn us into the very terrorists or Nazis some refer to. This is why I find it strange being a member of a group who were mass exterminated because of negative stereotyping, someone would claim we Jews should know better and should negatively stereotype Muslims because "they" hate us. I have no time to be dragged into someone else's exercise of negative stereotyping. Been done to my people and resulted in a holocaust. For anyone to tell me I should repeat the exercise with anyone else after what happened to my family is absurd and you need not apologize. You get that.
  2. Actually I agree with it. I should have been clearer. You need to struggle to provide it. It can't just come without effort and overcoming evil or some other challenge. That struggle is what teaches its meaning and makes it positive. Hey about that other issue. Money changer, money lender. Interesting the difference in words. I know the Bible says changer but as you know the changers lent money and charged interest when they changed it. To me if you follow the gospels about that which I can see happening given he appears to have defended the Talmud consistently especially the concept of Teekam Olem (healing the world through positive deeds) he was challenging the concept of wealth itself and what makes one wealthy-the amount of money they accumulate or have or the good they can do for others and the world in general. That is the point. Wealth we as know it you and I is measured in how much good we do not how much money we earn. Has anything good come from charging interest and changing or lending money? We haven't used it as an exercise to share but to hoard and accumulate and charge others for what we accumulate and they need. His teachings talked of mutual exchanges not supply and demand allowing one side to dictate the terms of exchange. It gets down to this I think-is Christianity or for that matter Judaism compatible with supply and demand exchanges and market places? Another thing. I do understand that in Europe because Jews could not own land or engage in certain professions they were forced to become money lenders out of necessity but it was soul rotting. To have to do that for a living ate up the Jewish soul. It is why perhaps when we Jews did get the opportunity to do other things- we may have excelled because we know how horrible it is to have to do other things out of necessity to survive in the immediate tense and not be able pursue the meaning of life on a higher level of sharing.
  3. Interestingly usury and charging interest two noteable things Jesus is said to have questioned would make perfect sense. It had nothing to do with Judaism. In fact if you follow Judaism as originally intended you share what you do not need without placing conditions on the sharing. The person you share with would do the same thing causing a society of constant sharing not accumulation. That concept of course today would prevent the very basis of our materialist free enterprise system and would probably be called collectivism or socialism by many. Animistic peoples such as the aboriginals in North America and aboriginals of Australia and numerous peoples in Africa practiced it. Materialism and free enterprise are thought to be as ancient as humankind. Some anthropologists would disagree saying free enterprise occurred when alpha males lost control of their packs and dominated the method of how goods were distributed among a pack. An Alpha male would eat first, then his mates and their offspring, then everyone else in a pecking order but in that primitive set up survival of the fittest was assured with limited resources. That system was not free enterprise. Free enterprise only occurred once there were enough resources to accumulate unevenly. In societies with extreme shortages of resources free enterprise becomes impossible because no one can afford the few resources there are Its interesting because Jesus if he did indeed challenge the money lenders was defending basic precepts in the Talmud as to how to interpret charity and benevolence. At the pith and substance of his fights or disagreements was someone trying to defend the religion from going astray to the changes being implemented by Priests. The thing is in Judaism there is no one approach that is supposed to prevail. We are supposed to constantly debate and come up with new interpretations and each and every word of the Torah, Talmud, Old Testament. There was no intent to come up with a one size fits all interpretation as do many Evangelical or Orthodox Christians. I think the Bible's New Testament diverged from its actual teachings to an edited version that makes it seem Jesus was a totalitarian demanding no one question him. I think in the original context if there was a Jesus (as opposed to maybe more than one rebel Rabbiah placed in a collective metaphor called Jesus) it is most likely he would have expected debate and constant challenges to his concepts and would have welcomed them. I of course lean towards words and concepts of James and others I would argue were deleted because they did not lend themselves to one central organ demanding people obey blindly but taught of being religious or spiritual on an individual level and through individual actions to help others as creating those concepts, not just words. I don't think a lot of people would very much appreciate the implications let alone having to practice the actual beliefs of Jesus. I think they would find it in today's society unrealistic. The very notion of helping people is confusing in today's society as well because many people demanding help won't help themselves or others and a key to the concept is those of us needing help should still help ourselves first and continue to help others and not believe since we need help, we suspend the rest and simply demand help. Its why for me when I see one of the few remaining charities I think is teaching a practical application of Christianity, the Salvation Army, I note they do not require a person in need to be a Christian to be helped by them, they do not place preconditions on the person but they also expect that person to make some effort to help themselves and others if they want help and in so doing they do not rob them of their souls. If you give to someone and in so doing teach them however unintentionally they do not have to be responsible for helping themselves or others, you molest or injure or even destroy their soul. I believe Jesus taught as did so many others that even the most in need humans want to have a purpose in life (dignity, self-esteem( and our purpose in life is to create meaning from chaos and struggle of the evil and good within us to create something positive for other life forms. If by helping others we rob them of that, we molest them not help them. Giving must be done with no method that prevents the person we help from helping themselves. That is a huge lesson many do not follow who claim to be charitable. Another example of a charity who follow what I say are the Unitarian Service Committee. I could name many Jewish charities and Christian charities that do the same but space does not allow but the point is they do not require you to be Christian, or anything else, they simply help you in a way expecting nothing in return but in a way that assists, nurtures or helps the person in need help themselves NOT simply be a dependent victim. I think usury and lending money came about because of an unequal distribution of resources and was a socio-economic caused deviation away from the religion. I just can not see true Christianity approving of the wealthy large organizations that now claim to speak the name of Christ. I believe the religion was supposed to be like the Bhuddist or Daoist approach, a disciplined method of thinking and valuing that occurred through meditation not going into a large building designed to make people fear and feel small in the face of a God that is portrayed as demanding things through the Jesus liaison turning Jesus into a person who demands on behalf of this God. I am aware of the reference to what Christians call Satan in the Old Testament, but in the Old Testament that angel was placed in the role of a tester of faith on behalf of God. The idea of disobeying God still would occur ultimately in the Old Testament with each individual in the story not just the tribe they may have led. I think the personification of evil and good in human nature in Jesus and Satan as two human figures representing it assist making an abstract concept easier but I myself do not see the evil and good in any human dictated by or controlled by anyone but us ultimately and inevitably on an individual level when we make our choices. Some people believe we have no free choice and are trapped in a hell dictating our choices and we live therefore in an illusion, a trap created by Satan, and to get out, we must turn to ourselves and realize everything is a lie and so it doesn't matter what we do, we need to protect ourselves. Thus we have all these cult following twits in Hollywood celebrating what they think is an Illuminated savior, the true Jesus not the one they were told who they believe is Satan. They believe their illuminated savior is the real Jesus or symbol to get out of hell and they are in the know and smarter than we idiots. Then again some believe shapeshifting lizards control us all. Me I take one thought at a time. I watch the simplicity of free thought take shape in the here and now and watch the past, present and future, cease to have meaning. As one gets older that happens. They realize the current moment is the all or nothing of the essence of life a movement and transfer of energy constantly changing shape and dimension with each new application or synthesis of conclusion that comes from thesis and anti-thesis contradicting one another. To live is simply to share positive energy, to spread hope even if it seems hopeless-again the message of Jesus and many others and one of my favourites Anne Frank.
  4. I am 63 so am not comfortable with people young enough to be younger or similiar in age to my daughters which means under 35. Of course younger women are attractive physically but there is more than just that. Intelligence, humour, good hygiene, are important. I find Jane Fonda still hot. Bottom line I prefer dogs these days as companions other than my wife. They are like me..we bark and drool but are loyal to my wife.
  5. What racism..you and Boges automatically call racism if something negative is said about Markle. Her mix is not the issue her being a pretentious phony is. She married a dim wit thinking it was her ticket to money and found out the life of a Royal is not what she thought and wants to live far better than what she would have in the UK. The Queen handled her perfectly. Buh bye and take the dummy with you. Harry will be divorced in a year and come crying back to Willie and Charlie. She will end up doing porno movies. She comes from the same escort agency as Melania Trump. Both are Epstein call girls. Racism my ass. She is a call girl who got called out. She is no victim just a diaper rash. Nothing some zinc oxide can not handle. Saint Meaghen, right.
  6. Here is other info for your interest on this topic: "We believe that the mass of information gathered sheds new light on the phenomenon of Islamist violence. It makes it possible to better describe it, to better understand it, to document its severity. Thus, by way of illustration, we can establish that between 1979 and 2019, at least 33,769 Islamist terrorist attacks took place worldwide. They caused the deaths of at least 167,096 people. We can also say that Islamist terrorist attacks account for 18.8% of all attacks worldwide, but that they are responsible for 39.1% of the lives lost due to terrorism; or that, during the years studied, there has been an intensification of this violence and that the deadliest period is the most recent: from 2013 onwards, in our opinion, Islam has become the main cause (63.4%) of deaths due to terrorism in the world. We identify and quantify operating methods and targets. The vision of the phenomenon improves, the image becomes clearer. In this way, we show that the majority of the victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims (91.2%)." source: http://www.fondapol.org/en/etudes-en/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2019/ The above info many would use as a reason to hold the views Wes does. I get that. Where I ask for further debate is on the conclusion above that says "Islam has become the main cause of deaths due to terrorism in the world". Interestingly the above author used the term "Islamist" when describing the terror attacks but then later went on to say "Islam" became the main cause of deaths, not "Islamism" or "Islamists" or "Islamic extremist views" were the main motivator of deaths due to terrorism world wide. It shows the author like most of us non Muslims interchange the word Islam with types of Islamic beliefs that are used to justify terror attacks as if they are one and the same. But are they and does it matter to distinguish the two? Here is the issue I now raise restated at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/when-a-phrase-takes-on-new-meaning-radical-islam-explained.html "Let’s start with the words. “Islam” is a 1,500-year-old religion whose 1.6 billion followers worldwide observe a spectrum of customs and traditions. “Radical” can mean something very different or against tradition, or be defined as extreme views, practices and policies. The words, absent political context, could be read as trying to distinguish fringe interpretations of Islam, including justifications for violence, from the mainstream majority view, which is peaceful. But that context — including who shouts the phrase and who studiously avoids uttering it — has ladened it with pernicious meaning in particular quarters." Then we get into the response Wes and others will give me as to the above that says: (source: https://areomagazine.com/2017/04/25/islam-vs-islamism-why-the-distinction-still-matters/ "Much has been said regarding the terms Islam and Islamism. Some argue the distinction is an artificial one, imposed by the politically correct Left. Others stress it is essential to distinguish between the religion and its violent imposition so that Muslims are not indiscriminately condemned with a broad brush. " and this is why the above article went on to say: "To rely on the simplistic assumption that people are guided exclusively by “holy” texts, on the other hand, is to ignore the multi-faceted nature of our modern problem with Islamic extremism. It’s also a bit like saying video games are what make people kill — it seeks an easy scapegoat. While not denying the role religion plays in terrorism, we must be aware that there are other factors at play that make the distinction between Islam and Islamism especially important." This is also why not just myself but the Jewish community contrary to what Wes or others may think do not necessarily fear Muslims. Consider these comments from the Anti-Defamation League, ( https://www.adl.org/education/resources/tools-and-strategies/myths-and-facts-about-muslim-people-and-islam) an organization we created to combat anti-semitism but we also use to help us combat discrimination against non Jews, including Christians and Muslims: " Within every religion, there exists a spectrum of attitudes and behavior and extremism is not unique to one particular belief system. There are people who sincerely view themselves as Muslims who have committed horrible acts in the name of Islam. These people, and their interpretation of Islam, is rightly called “extremist;” they are a minority within Islam and the vast majority of Muslims reject their violence and consider their interpretation a distortion of the Muslim faith. Extremism is not unique to Islam. ... It is important to keep in mind that Islam, like other Abrahamic religions, includes a large pool of opinions and different ways to understand the traditional holy text that was written in a different era. Terrorists use radical interpretations of Islam, which take a small number of texts that were meant to regulate warfare in the early days of Islam. Terrorists then apply these interpretations to contemporary times." This is why I and others argue the problems or fears Wes and others are referring to come from Islamism not Islam, that is to say: (source:http://www.danielpipes.org/954/distinguishing-between-islam-and-islamism) "Islamism is an ideology that demands man's complete adherence to the sacred law of Islam and rejects as much as possible outside influence, with some exceptions (such as access to military and medical technology). It is imbued with a deep antagonism towards non-Muslims and has a particular hostility towards the West. It amounts to an effort to turn Islam, a religion and civilization, into an ideology.... Islamism is, in other words, yet another twentieth-century radical utopian scheme. Like Marxism-Leninism or fascism, it offers a way to control the state, run society, and remake the human being. It is an Islamic-flavored version of totalitarianism... In this, Islamism is a huge change from traditional Islam. One illustration: Whereas traditional Islam's sacred law is a personal law, a law a Muslim must follow wherever he is, Islamism tries to apply a Western-style geographic law that depends on where one lives. Take the case of Sudan, where traditionally a Christian was perfectly entitled to drink alcohol, for he is a Christian, and Islamic law applies only to Muslims. But the current regime has banned alcohol for every Sudanese. It assumes Islamic law is territorial because that is the way a Western society is run." With the above in mind, if you take the time to distinguish the two, then I and others argue, when you go next to try implement policies dealing with people you think are dangerous to Canada, i.e., radical Islamists, you do not confuse them with other Muslims who are equally as victimized and hated by radical Islamists and more importantly understand, an actual follower of Islam not radical islamism, would not impose his beliefs on you, they are his or her personal code of behaviour and Muslims like we Christians, Jews, Hindus, have different views as to how strict or fundamental or orthodox they are when practicing Islam. There is no one centralized thought in Islam. Each Mullah or Imam has their own interpretation and people practice it in a wide variety of ways and so for people like me who have lived with Muslims more so than most Canadians and also have witnessed terrorism or lived with it unlike most Canadians, I have a different perspective that had to come up with a more complex way of understanding who might kill or not kill me and it sure as hell could not simply assume all Muslims are going to kill me otherwise I could have never walked a street ever in Israel. If we construct policies that properly identify what it is we think we fear and rationally examine those fears then I and others argue, your policy or approach to what you perceive as a threat changes dramatically if for no other reason it now switches to rational response, not subjective reflex response. This then leads me to argue instead of blanketly prohibiting anyone from being an immigrant or refugee because you think they are a Muslim or for that matter terrorist: make a point to differentiate Islamists and Islamism from Muslims in discussions of challenging using Islam to rationalize terror; form alliances with Muslims to challenge and contain Islamists or any other violent totalitarian extremists to reduce their aggressiveness towards all of us do not be afraid of all Muslims particularly those who came to Canada to flee Islamists and reject their views do not assume those of us who are not anti Muslim are pro Islamist or label is with any other simplistic stereotypes such as being politically correct or trendy leftist, in fact trendy leftists are more likely to support Islamists the refugee definition in Canada needs a re-visit for many reasons but not simply because we allow Muslims to be refugees our immigration policies contrary to popular belief try to recruit immigrants who match needs we need filled in Canada but can't find in Canadians-contrary to popular belief most immigrants can not and will not take jobs away from Canadians, they take jobs no Canadians will immigration policies have a point system looking for qualifications based on objective criteria the deficit Canada has incurred will require people to pay taxes and increasing taxes into the system to pay not only that deficit but keep our public systems functioning -our current population base can not produce sufficient numbers of people to pay those taxes so we have no choice but to bring in new workers when defining Canadian values, define what they are, not what they are NOT otherwise you have NOT defined Canadian values and the confusion as to what our values are remains as we continue to be unable to say what they are policies must be based on objective criteria not subjective feelings or assumptions police and security checks on anyone coming to Canada can not be based on someone's physical appearance but on carefully defined criteria designed to detect possible security risks, i.e., it must be based on forensic criteria not negative stereotypes of what people believe, wear or eat.
  7. Here I think this is the best way to answer the above and it is an excerpt from: https://www.csis.org/analysis/islam-and-patterns-terrorism-and-violent-extremism "It is far too easy for analysts who are not Muslim to focus on the small part of the extremist threat that Muslim extremists pose to non-Muslims in the West and/or demonize one of the world's great religions, and to drift into some form of Islamophobia—blaming a faith for patterns of violence that are driven by a tiny fraction of the world's Muslims and by many other factors like population, failed governance, and weak economic development. It is equally easy to avoid analyzing the links between extremist violence and Islam in order to be politically correct or to avoid provoking Muslims and the governments of largely Muslim states. The end result is to ignore the reality that most extremist and terrorist violence does occur in largely Muslim states, although it overwhelmingly consists of attacks by Muslim extremists on fellow Muslims, and not some clash between civilizations. If one examines a wide range of sources, however, a number of key patterns emerge that make five things very clear: First, the overwhelming majority of extremist and violent terrorist incidents do occur in largely Muslim states. Second, most of these incidents are perpetrated by a small minority of Muslims seeking power primarily in their own areas of operation and whose primary victims are fellow Muslims. Third, almost all of the governments of the countries involved are actively fighting extremism and terrorism, and most are allies of Western states that work closely with the security, military, and counter terrorism forces of non-Muslim states to fight extremism and terrorism. Fourth, the vast majority of Muslims oppose violent extremism and terrorism, and, Fifth, religion is only one of many factors that lead to instability and violence in largely Muslim states. It is a critical ideological force in shaping the current patterns of extremism, but it does not represent the core values of Islam and many other far more material factors help lead to the rise of extremism."
  8. Geez if you did that we would have no one to run our governments or get elected. Sorry I could not resist. Oh man what a topic. It aint easy to discuss. I don't really disagree that much with Wes except on how we define the problem we both agree exists. I am going where you and Moonlight are going on this...how do we define quality Canadians if I can use that word? How does anyone make an immigration policy or regulation that attracts or brings in such quality people and what criteria would we use and why?
  9. Get real Wes. Nothing I have said is politically correct or incorrect. You want to interpret it that way because you disagree with it, period. I do notice though now that you mention political correctness you stated and I quote: " 99% of them (terrorist attacks) come from 1.4 of the earth's population rather than say what you meant, Muslims. There are 1.6 billion Muslims, which is estimated to be 23% of the world's population which is where I am assuming you get your 1/4 estimate from. I got that. What I do not get is where you pulled the 99% figure from. Please share. What you also did not explain is what percentage of those 1.6 billion Muslims carried out the terror attacks because to come up with a pattern of how likely a Muslim will commit terror one needs to extrapolate the exact no. of Muslim attacks by Muslims who performed those attacks and then compare their amount to the total amount of all Muslims to then be able to extrapolate a number that predicts the likelihood of any Muslim committing a terror attack. You did not do that. Your assumption also does not properly taken into account the KIND of Muslim that engages in the terror act and who is attacked. You make no distinction between Sunni, Ismaili, Shufi, Ahmedya, Shiite, etc. and just assume all Muslims are the same and you ignore the fact that most Muslim terror attacks are directed at other Muslims not non Muslims. The last time I looked zero Amidyah and Ismaili Muslims had committed any terror attack, so why do you assume because they are Muslim they are more likely to engage in terrorism? That makes no mathematical or logical sense. If Muslims are more likely to be violent people because Muslims are more likely to be terrorists then provide numbers and your method of extrapolation. That is all I have asked and you continue to make up numbers with no source or basis and make conclusions as to patterns of risk with no extrapolation process. That is why I challenge it.. because I argue it makes no logical sense.. and in fact suggest you might want to ask an actuary how to properly extrapolate risk from preceding actions because that is what I am arguing. I am arguing predicting risk is a lot more complex then what you or I might assume and so I challenge you its not based on political correctness but on lack of objective formulization. While we are at it, do you have any figures as to how many Muslim refugees or immigrants in Canada have committed terror attacks in Canada or overseas? Have you correlated their rates to the entire Muslim population of the world to get a proper extrapolation of a Muslim's likelihood to kill non Muslim Canadians? Have you broken those Muslims down into more accurate categories so as not to assume all Muslims are the same, i.e., that Ismailis, Amidyah, Shiite, Sunni, etc. are different? Please....share the numbers. Here is what I have also considered and that is your 99% figure may not necessarily be accurate. Some would argue that since September 11, Islamist groups have conducted about 20% of terrorist attacks worldwide and so terrorist attacks are less likely to be conducted by a Muslim than by a non-Muslim group. (source: http://theconversation.com/looking-at-terror-attacks-per-capita-should-make-us-rethink-beliefs-about-levels-of-risk-and-muslims-78449) I also found one site that says and I quote:: "Fact: There are only about a total estimated 100,000 militant extremist Muslims in the world. That is less than 0.01% of the global Muslim population of 1.7 billion people. “The vast majority of the estimated 85,000 to 106,000 militants fighting with militant jihadist groups around the world are fighting for purely local reasons, for instance, trying to install Sharia law in northern Nigeria or trying to impose Taliban rule on Pakistan and Afghanistan, while only a small number of these militants are focused on attacking the West.” Source: P. Bergen, National Security Analyst and E. Schneider, Research Associate: http://us.cnn.com/2014/09/26/opinion/bergen-schneider-how-many-jihadists/index.html" and: Fact: Most terror attacks in the Western world (Europe, USA) are committed by non-Muslims, yet terrorist attacks by Muslims receive 449% MORE MEDIA COVERAGE than other attacks from 2011-2015. This is per the findings of an academic study from Georgia State University quoted below: “We examined news coverage from LexisNexis Academic and CNN.com for all terrorist attacks in the United States between 2011 and 2015. Controlling for target type, fatalities, and being arrested, attacks by Muslim perpetrators received, on average, 449% more coverage than other attacks. Given the disproportionate quantity of news coverage for these attacks, it is no wonder that people are afraid of the Muslim terrorist. More representative media coverage could help to bring public perception of terrorism in line with reality.” Source: Kearns, Erin M. and Betus, Allison and Lemieux, Anthony, Why Do Some Terrorist Attacks Receive More Media Attention Than Others? (March 5, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928138 I also have argued I think your conclusions ignore good Muslims. I think your conclusions ignore moderate Muslims who are against extremism and terrorism and could positively contribute to Canada. I argue your conclusions and generalized negative assumptions about all Muslims wrongfully stereotypes law abiding, good, hard working, anti terrorist, peaceful Muslims. How is that politically correct to say that? What makes you think the only reason I challenge your assumptions are because of political correctness. Lol. I am one of the biggest smell faces on this forum when it comes to correctness. No one who argues as I do has ever stated there are no Muslim terrorists or no Muslim shmucks. I have been the first to say we need to be realistic on how we deal with extremist terrorists. Never have I justified terrorism or shmucks on this forum so stop stereotyping me. You know better and no I do not and have never said you are a violent Muslim hater. I am simply debating the issues. The difference between us is I want to take the time to differentiate good from bad Muslims because its the fair thing to do. I treat people the way I want to be treated. Its that simple. I do not assume the generalizations you do about them precisely because people have done that to me about my Jewish identity and I know how unfair it is. That is all. I am no King of any Jews. I was shot at and spit at and had rocks thrown at me by Muslims, I cleaned the aftermath up after Muslim terrorism and I learned because of that-that when people are shot and die and blow up, as I witnessed , they dead were both Muslim and Jewish and they blew up the exact same way and looked no different once they awere burning flesh. So I will be damned if you ask me to assume the flesh I put in plastic bags should not be properly acknowledged The people in those bags Muslim or Jewish suffered equally from bad Muslims. I also saw bullshit extremist behavior from certain Jews and I never condoned what they did and will not allow anyone to stereotype me as being the same as them either. I have been spit at by both extremist Muslims and Jews because of the uniform I wore I was no King. I dug toilets and cleaned toilets and feet and cleaned roads and pulled worms out of toes. What you see as Muslim or Jewish shit I only see as shit because from my perspective its all it was, shit. I am not arguing all Muslims or for that matter Jews or anyone else is innocent or never had a shit. Give me a break. I know what I cleaned thank you. What I am arguing is not all Muslims and everyone else should be assumed to be full of shit simply because they were born with a propensity to be assholes. I argue if you do that you become no different than terrorists in your reasoning and they have the last laugh because your incorrect assumptions may however unintentional alienate the very people you want to win over to help you fight the terrorists. I argue what you are doing makes it easier for terrorists to recruit the very people we need to form an alliance with to fight the terrorists.
  10. In regards to 1, because I have been in the position where I have witnessed indiscriminate violence and/or been ordered to do things that both made me develop insight there is a fine line between controlled response to contain negative behaviour and indiscriminate violence. In regards to what you feel, I have no interest in pursuing your claims of always being in control of your acts or feelings of violence. What I have learned in life is that people who have been quick to tell me they are under control have more often been in a state of denial as to their true feelings. However I do not claim nor am I interested in pursuing with you, your claims of control. In regards to your third statement it is illogical. The sheer volume of violence world wide as exhibited by humans renders your comment absurd. In regards to your fourth comment you stated in the previous response I responded to and I quote; " I have never worried about my potential to be violent without reason". It is from that statement I inferred you claim to be a man of reasonable violence and capable of expressing reasonable violence. If you were not claiming to be violent and claim never to have been violent or acted violent or feel violent, then I live that claim to you and tell you that you would be the first human I ever heard from who claims he has no violence in him and yes I have a problem with such a contention. Then again maybe you were in Hari Krishna and it worked for you. I leave that for you. Further, I had no questions for you, you in fact raised the question in your previous response which I responded to. I have nothing to question you on. If you were in Hari Krishna or have entered a stage of enlightenment where you have reached a state of non violence I have no need to question it thank you. I didn't before, I do not now. Next, on this thread, you made your position on Muslims clear and I disagree with your position. You made your position clear on this and many other threads as to where you stand on immigration policies, refugee policies and Muslims and I need no clarification of them through questioning and I have challenged them for the reasons I stated. I do not believe any government policy to be effective should be based on fear mongering or assumptions of negative generalization of anyone as an individual or as a member of a social group. I have also previously argued I contend as do others that government policies, initiatives and laws should be based on objective standards and criteria that are fair and balanced. I also stated the fact that there are Muslim terrorists, Muslim anti-semites, does not and should not give you the right let alone presumption to lecture me or any Jew on our history and tell us what we must think of Muslims. When I stated that I spoke for myself. I also explained that nowhere in my religion does it say I should hate or assume an entire people is evil because some or many of them may be. My religion teaches the exact opposite so to tell me what anti-semitism is let alone how I as a Jew should react to Muslims does not make me King of the Jews, it makes me a poster telling you that I challenge your opinions and ask you to NOT assume or presume to tell me as a Jew or speak on behalf of other Jews or Netanyahu as to what they think of Muslims unless they tell you to or you quote from them directly without removing what they said from its actual context.
  11. Your question and then second sentence make it clear your first question was not a question but in fact a statement that when read in conjunction with your second sentence tries to turn what I said into a point of subjective personal ridicule in regards to my previously stated reservations about violence and further that you do not understand what it means to be asked to kill someone and/or be placed in a position as a result of witnessing violence about how difficult it is to control the instant reaction to that violence by becoming violent. Your third sentence makes it clear that you; i-felt the need to pose yourself as reasonably violent; an ii-lack the insight to see the inherent contradiction in that contention. Given the above it also does not surprise me you can't see a co-relation in how negative stereotyping of an entire group of people dehumanizes them and makes it easier to be hateful including violent towards them. Finally since you chose to turn this into a pissing contest, I leave it to others to ask what is more disturbing: 1-someone who worries about how easy it is to be violent and the negative consequences of becoming violent; or 2-someone who has no concerns when he is violent because he doesn't step on ants or earthworms. As for your comment about not going "all Bhuddist" whatever the phack that means you may wish to consider Bhudda stated: "Seeing the similarity to oneself, one should not use violence or have it used." You may also wish to consider the fact that Ted Kennedy was not a Buddhist but did say: "Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits." Edward Kennedy
  12. You have zero proof of that and you ignore the behaviour of Markle. She is a manipulative shallow narcissist who ridiculed the monarchy from the get go. She is disliked because she is a selfish phony. She ridicules the very role of Princess Anne she does not want to do. She wants to brand the monarchy to make money. She is a whore who wants to whore out her monarchy status. She wants to go back to LA and sel out her royal status in Hollywood to make money for her greedy self. She is ugly in spirit and soul. She married a blood clot.These two spoiled brats are not victims just petulant self entitled brats.
  13. You are dead on as to the last sentence. Hey we may have to babysit Harry.
  14. I loath the same crap. Respect to you... you also have extra reasons as a woman to have concern with fundamentalist women haters. I defer to you and Godess or Dialamah on that.
×
×
  • Create New...