[Armour]

I quoted numerous verses above in the bible that say non-believers should be killed. How can you possibly be so hyproctical as to criticize the Koran for containing the same messages as in the Bible.

Your just using your bigotry to support your prejudices. Shame on your for accusing Muslims of exactly the same things that Christians did first.

I didn't see your bible references. Were they all from the Old Testament (which is the Jewish holy book)?

My bigotry? Prove my alleged bigotry? You have a history of making asinine statements with no evidence to back them up. You're being a bully, niftz. You don't get to toss around terms and names without proof.

What did Christians do first?

 

[Armour]

Exactly, as I thought; you quoted the Old Teatament (which is the Torah). The Christian views the Old Testament through the prism of the New.

 

[W. K. Lis]

``

 

[nfitz]

I didn't see your bible references. Were they all from the Old Testament (which is the Jewish holy book)?

I neither know, nor could care less, which part of the bible they are from. I provided a reference to to the name of the story they are in.

The point is, despite your claims otherwise, the bible frequently calls on people to kill unbelievers - just like the Koran. You seem to think you are allowed to ignore the bits of the bible that don't support your case.

My bigotry? Prove my alleged bigotry?

Your statement that "And in terms of terrorism, that is virtually an Islamic problem, exclusively. " I haven't seen such extreme bigotry like that here. Trying to pretend that terrorism is exclusively a Muslim problem is vile and disgusting hatred.

You have a history of making asinine statements with no evidence to back them up. You're being a bully, niftz. You don't get to toss around terms and names without proof.

And you don't get to be an anti-Muslim bigot, spouting lies, and trying to ignore that the bible isn't full of the same evil bullshit as the koran.

Bigots don't deserve to live in this great nation, and should be deported. Thank the gods we have a strong moral leaders like Trudeau and Wynne now, instead of those that would succumb to such bigotry.

What did Christians do first?

With Christianity predating Islam, the Bible predates the Koran. (which is a gross simplification really, as the Koran builds on the existing stories - however there's much in the Koran that postdates the newest material in the bible - assuming we ignore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

 

[picard102]

Is there a thread where you haven't called someone a racist/bigot?

 

[gabe]

Islam is full of bad ideas and some people get way to defensive when those bad ideas are criticized.

 

[nfitz]

Is there a thread where you haven't called someone a racist/bigot?

What kind of person wouldn't point out blatant bigotry when people post it? We've just gone through an election where we've had a major party using racism as a wedge issue.

Sadly, it's become apparent between that, the Fords, and the exposure on carding in Toronto, that we still live in a very racist society. Racism is part of our everyday lives. So yes, it should come up frequently - and the racists in society must be named and shamed. Anyone who objects to the naming and shaming racists, is supporting racism. Those who support racisms are racists.

Islam is full of bad ideas and some people get way to defensive when those bad ideas are criticized.

Islam is full of the same bad ideas as Christianity and Judaism. Not surprising, given they are all related to each other, and have the same source documents. Making it even more absurd when a member of one criticizes another for the violence in the teaching shared by both religions.

As silly and absurd as these religions are, we must give the same respect to Islam as we do to Christianity and Judaism. Those who think it's okay to respect some, but not all three, must be exposed for what they are.

I can see a case for not respecting any of them. But given that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are closely related, I fail to fathom how any could so disrespect a religion that has more similarities than differences.

 

[Armour]

I neither know, nor could care less, which part of the bible they are from. I provided a reference to to the name of the story they are in.

The point is, despite your claims otherwise, the bible frequently calls on people to kill unbelievers - just like the Koran. You seem to think you are allowed to ignore the bits of the bible that don't support your case.

Your statement that "And in terms of terrorism, that is virtually an Islamic problem, exclusively. " I haven't seen such extreme bigotry like that here. Trying to pretend that terrorism is exclusively a Muslim problem is vile and disgusting hatred.

And you don't get to be an anti-Muslim bigot, spouting lies, and trying to ignore that the bible isn't full of the same evil bullshit as the koran.

Bigots don't deserve to live in this great nation, and should be deported. Thank the gods we have a strong moral leaders like Trudeau and Wynne now, instead of those that would succumb to such bigotry.

With Christianity predating Islam, the Bible predates the Koran. (which is a gross simplification really, as the Koran builds on the existing stories - however there's much in the Koran that postdates the newest material in the bible - assuming we ignore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

You don't care which part of the bible the verses I posted came from? Uh, that's kind of imperative as the genesis of Christianity doesn't even occur until the New Testament. Way to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the bible. Jesus didn't call for the things that happened in books like Leviticus. The Old Testament predates Christ and the birth of Christianity. Do you not understand that? It is the New Testament which is what Christians are to use as a guide to live the their lives, and Christ never told anyone to murder or harm others. Your arguments should be focused on what Jesus says, not the God of the Old Testament. You're either purposely ignoring that or you're just illogical. Probably both.

Why does niftz get away with being a bully? Calling people racists and bigots, with no evidence to support those claims, is completely unacceptable, immature and impolite behaviour. I thought ad hominem attacks were prohibited? Why isn't he called out on this? What are people afraid of? He is incapable of having a civil debate without throwing around empty accusations like there's tomorrow. You come off as someone that is very insecure, nfitz. Can you not get through a single conversation about politics/world events without pummelling your opponents with nasty name calling that you, somehow, think is justified by your own falsified truth? You're constantly rephrasing yourself when you are confronted about your labelling of others (the rare times when some pushes back at you) thus demonstrating that you don't think before you call someone a bigot, racist, etc. Do you never observe the fact that you have made this mistake multiple times and continue to do so? Let me know when you want to discuss things like an actual adult. It makes discussions so much more enjoyable when people can exchange thoughts without being struck by your baseless battering.

 

[ttk77]

You don't care which part of the bible the verses I posted came from? Uh, that's kind of imperative as the genesis of Christianity doesn't even occur until the New Testament. Way to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the bible. Jesus didn't call for the things that happened in books like Leviticus. The Old Testament predates Christ and the birth of Christianity. Do you not understand that? It is the New Testament which is what Christians are to use as a guide to live the their lives, and Christ never told anyone to murder or harm others. Your arguments should be focused on what Jesus says, not the God of the Old Testament. You're either purposely ignoring that or you're just illogical. Probably both.

Really? That's news to an awful lot of past and present Christians who used the old testament to justify all sorts of vile and abhorrent actions in the name of their religion. If one can be a good Christian by picking and choosing which parts of the bible they don't like then surely a Muslim can do the same.

 

[ttk77]

I take it everyone knows what is going in in Paris. If Trudeau is smart, the air strikes and combat mission will continue. Taking in 25,000 refugees might not be a priority.

Bombing the shit out of that part of the world hasn't stopped the terrorists over the past 15 years since 9/11, so why would you think it would start working now? The only thing it does is radicalize even more people. The terrorists depend on this kind of behaviour and the anti-muslim fervour it helps to encourage to swell their ranks. It's time to re-examine how we handle this. I'm not saying military action isn't part of the answer, but we can't keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect that things will turn out differently this time.

 

[ttk77]

Yes. And in terms of terrorism, that is virtually an Islamic problem, exclusively. It isn't Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists that are slaughtering people that don't view the world through a similar lens.

This statement is incorrect unless you meant religiously motivated terrorism. The vast majority of worldwide terror attacks are perpetrated by state separatists, and to a somewhat lesser degree left/right ideological conflict. The truth behind the religiously motivated part is also tenuous at best considering the Dutch massacre that happened a couple years ago (in the name of Christianity) and the shootings that seem to happen every couple of months down in the US (many of which have motivations rooted in the perpetrators Christian faith). Of those islamist terror incidents, the vast majority occur in muslim nations where muslims also comprise the vast majority of the victims.

 

[Tewder]

Can we drop religion from the discussion here please? There is no logic to any religious discussion and it isn't constructive in any way. Let's also drop the accusations of racism and name-calling. Those here accusing others of racism are in fact showing themselves to be intolerant. Again, not constructive.

My take:

We should not be taking in refugees on any mass scale. It's a bandaid solution that is unsustainable long term and it doesn't address the core issues motivating this migratory crisis to start with. That said, we absolutely should be committing globally to increased humanitarian aid to this region, including funding and protection for displaced people until such time as the crisis there can be stabilized.

ISIS needs to be defeated. We've ignored this for too long and its reach and capabilities have only grown stronger. 'Experts' appear to be unanimous that a coalition of ground troops is needed to do this, and Canada does have an ethical, strategic, political and diplomatic obligation to participate alongside its allies in this effort. In fact, we could have a strong leadership position in this given our experience in Afghanistan and with peace-keeping around the world.

In the meantime we do need to have an honest conversation about the role the west has played in fomenting these problems. Meddling in this region has profited the few, a minority of interests that simply do not reflect the wider interests of the West. We need to call this out. We need to work to bring this region into the modern developed global community. The alternative will simply be unsustainable.

 

[ksun]

Former French PM reminds people that (if my French didn't fail me) terrorism stems from France's consistent following the White house in its foreign policy in "choosing sides" (eg: Ukraine vs. Russia, Israel vs. Palestinian, Saudi Arabia vs. Iran etc.) and intolerance of another world outside the Pax Americana club. He even says that the anti-terrorism wars will never be won.

Villepin opposed the Iraq War in 2003, and still thinks France shouldn't be part of America's war in the middle east. I am glad Trudeau is following that path from what I can see now.

 

[ksun]

We should not be taking in refugees on any mass scale. It's a bandaid solution that is unsustainable long term and it doesn't address the core issues motivating this migratory crisis to start with. That said, we absolutely should be committing globally to increased humanitarian aid to this region, including funding and protection for displaced people until such time as the crisis there can be stabilized.

ISIS needs to be defeated. We've ignored this for too long and its reach and capabilities have only grown stronger. 'Experts' appear to be unanimous that a coalition of ground troops is needed to do this, and Canada does have an ethical, strategic, political and diplomatic obligation to participate alongside its allies in this effort. In fact, we could have a strong leadership position in this given our experience in Afghanistan and with peace-keeping around the world.

In the meantime we do need to have an honest conversation about the role the west has played in fomenting these problems. Meddling in this region has profited the few, a minority of interests that simply do not reflect the wider interests of the West. We need to call this out. We need to work to bring this region into the modern developed global community. The alternative will simply be unsustainable.

I am impartial about the refugee issue, however, whether we take them or not has absolutely nothing to do with the Paris attack. All the fear mongering is more about xenophobic than anything else (often safety etc.). Therefore I decide to support taking in the 25000 refugees just to irk them.

ISIS does need to be defeated, but how? Ground troops? Do we learn our lesson or not? It will only CREATE new issues if the old is solved. ISIS emerged precisely because America decided that Saddam "has to go" (and we all know the previous Al Qaeda threat is nothing but Washington's creation too). More military attack isn't the solution. Look at the world now, even the US is only half-hearted about eliminating ISIS although it claims to because they are playing games too. It is more obsessed with removing Bashar al-asad (as if it were its business) than dealing with ISIS. Who are we, Canada, a middle power at most, to say "we have this and that obligation"? If more attacks like the Ottawa incidents happen, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves. ISIS may be evil, but why do we think the attack happens in France, not Switzerland or Portugal? Because it meddles. And let's be all honest - no country spends billions to engage wars to save strangers in other countries - it is all motivated by geopolitical-economic interest. Otherwise the west should be focusing most of its resources on Africa, not the Middle East for many decades. So drop the moral slogan.

Agree with the last paragraph. Stop meddling in the middle east, period. If the US can't help doing it, let it be their war. It will be New York or San Francisco that will be vulnerable, not Toronto or Ottawa. It is the meddling policy that invites terrorism, not refugees.

 

[ttk77]

Can we drop religion from the discussion here please? There is no logic to any religious discussion and it isn't constructive in any way. Let's also drop the accusations of racism and name-calling. Those here accusing others of racism are in fact showing themselves to be intolerant. Again, not constructive.

My take:

We should not be taking in refugees on any mass scale. It's a bandaid solution that is unsustainable long term and it doesn't address the core issues motivating this migratory crisis to start with. That said, we absolutely should be committing globally to increased humanitarian aid to this region, including funding and protection for displaced people until such time as the crisis there can be stabilized.

ISIS needs to be defeated. We've ignored this for too long and its reach and capabilities have only grown stronger. 'Experts' appear to be unanimous that a coalition of ground troops is needed to do this, and Canada does have an ethical, strategic, political and diplomatic obligation to participate alongside its allies in this effort. In fact, we could have a strong leadership position in this given our experience in Afghanistan and with peace-keeping around the world.

In the meantime we do need to have an honest conversation about the role the west has played in fomenting these problems. Meddling in this region has profited the few, a minority of interests that simply do not reflect the wider interests of the West. We need to call this out. We need to work to bring this region into the modern developed global community. The alternative will simply be unsustainable.

Unfortunately I don't think we can totally cut religion from the discussion. The middle east is in the middle of their own dark ages, and like ours, their religious leaders have an inordinate amount of political power. Until they can separate their religion from their political processes it's part of the discussion.

Your last statement (which I agree with) is also why I disagree with your first statement. To a large extent the problems in the middle east are the result of western interference. I think we have a moral obligation to help these people, and I don't think what humanitarian aid we can provide will even scratch the surface of what's required when you have 6 million people displaced. I also don't think it's right to turn our backs on Europe who have no choice but to accept this mass migration.