Canada submits voluntarily

[Tom Sawyer]

It's good that this thread exists. If there's one thing that Canada needs, it's right wing American bigots telling us how to run our society and what scary groups of foreigners we should be afraid of.

I am not a bigot. Neither am I right wing. But for some reason right-wing Islamists and left-wing "progressives" like Trudeau are quite chummy together. Go figure.

Huh. It's almost like the people actually involved aren't radical extremists and are actually just regular human beings. Nobody pees their pants in terror at that kind of characterization, though, so let's not bring that up again and instead post some more photos of scary non-white people and go hide under our beds.

 

[Derec]

Ah, but it will be...according to bigot Derec ("muzzies"...really?)

Would you be happier if I write "Islamists" instead?

He had to start this thread, since the other one ("Europe Submits Voluntarily") has proven conclusively that once you let the swarthy people in, you become an Islamic state. I mean, look at Europe! It's a caliphate ruled with an iron fist by ayatollahs! And to think...we were all warned...

You are the one with this weird fetish for brown or "swarthy" people. I hear a lot of young Afghan men are turning to gay prostitution to make money in cities like Berlin.
Germany: Male refugees turning to prostitution in Berlin
Maybe you can visit the Berlin Tiergarten and get that brown fetish out of your system.

Btw: the headline refers to them as "refugees". The social worked at the end of the video talks about "war zones", but in the interview with one of them, Farhad, he clearly indicates his motives for coming to Germany were economic, a "better life". He doesn't mention any "war zones" or lack of safety. And at the end of the video they say that many of these "cruisefugees" come from Pakistan and Iran, where there are no war zones. So the social worker (and German immigration system that lets these economic migrants posing as refugees and asylum seekers stay long term) is full of shit!

But to get back to your ridiculous allegation: Muslim is not a race, it's not a skin color. It's a set of beliefs. It's a culture. Hell, Gaza is one of the most radically Islamists territories and there are Gazans who are fair skinned and blue-eyed. Probably why Hitler got on so well with Palestinians back in the day.
And nobody has claimed that Europe is a "caliphate" already, but it is well on its way. Many areas in major European cities are majority Muslim already, and almost half of elementary schools in Berlin are majority Muslim. Because Muslims have much bigger birth rates than native populations, number of Muslim schoolchildren is a leading indicator for Islamization.

- - - Updated - - -

Huh. It's almost like the people actually involved aren't radical extremists and are actually just regular human beings.

Except they are extremists. Read up on Al Quds Day and Hezbollah.

Nobody pees their pants in terror at that kind of characterization, though, so let's not bring that up again and instead post some more photos of scary non-white people and go hide under our beds.

Fear in face of real dangers is a vital emotion. It keeps people alive.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Fear in face of real dangers is a vital emotion. It keeps people alive.

I agree. That point is unrelated to the subject of this thread, however.

 

[Derec]

Difference being Kitchener is not the Toronto thing Doug Ford spoke out against.

It's part of the same Islamist tapestry though.

And Canada is not Iran.

But Trudeau's Canada sure is cozying up to the Iranian theocrats and other Islamists.
Canada: Trudeau's Support for Islamists a Warning to America

With respect to ISIS fighters returning to Canada, Trudeau has argued that they will be a "powerful voice for deradicalization" and that those who oppose their return are "Islamophobic."

Is it really "islamophobic" to oppose return of ISIS terrorists to Canada? Is everything that is not explicitly islamophilic automatically "islamophobic"?
Add that to Trudeau's changing the law so that Islamist terrorists can't be stripped of their Canadian citizenship and paying Islamist terrorist and traitor Omar Khadr ten million dollars. Trudeau is worse than Merkel, except luckily we do not have Schengen in North America.

 

[Derec]

I agree. That point is unrelated to the subject of this thread, however.

Many Iranian people in late 70s weren't afraid of Khomeini taking over and imposing an Islamic theocracy. Carter administration wasn't afraid of it either, because they thought Khomeini was a saint. How did that turn out?

 

[Derec]

i only see antizionism here. not antijudaism. (antisemitism is a misnomer since palestinians (and arabs) are semits)

Antisemitism is normally defined as hatred of Jews. While it is the case that Arabs are technically Semites, that does not enter into the definition of anti-Semitism.
And Zionism is merely the movement to create a homeland for Jewish people. Being opposed to Jews having their own country is anti-Semitic in my opinion. There are plenty of lands inhabited and run by Arabs. Why be opposed to Jews having ~8000 square miles to call their own other than hatred of Jews?

 

[Derec]

From researching the Islamic Humanitarian Service of Kitchener, Ont., it seems they do a helluva lot of good for the community.

Many extremist groups have a social wing. Hamas has one. Hezbollah has one. Doesn't make them anything other that fascistic terrorist groups though. Hell, even Nazis had a social wing.

The worst I can find about them is one of the sheikhs being smeared by B'nai Brith Canda claiming he called for the “'eradication' of Israelis." Their own source they use clearly shows the sheikh calling for the "eradication of Zionism".

That's a distinction without a difference. How do you propose to eradicate "Zionism", i.e. destroy the State of Israel, without eradicating Israelis? This is how Hezbollah - which the Al Quds Day is organized in praise of - proposes to "eradicate Zionism".

The Hitlergruß is a nice touch.

But I am sure the Kitchener Islamists are nice people even if they support Islamic terrorism.

So you are joining B'nai Brith in smearing what appears to be good people, them lying about what they say, and you smearing them with images of protesters unrelated to their organization.

It is not a smear. It is legitimate characterization. You may not know this, so I will give you a pass for now, but the Iranian theocrats do not like to refer to Israel because they do not want to lend it legitimacy. Instead their preferred nomenclature for Israel is "Zionist Entity". The Al Quds day is a Iranian production, and the speakers at the protest are using Iranian approved lingo. When they say "Zionists" they mean "Israelis".

As to using protests unrelated to the organization, all the photos are from Quds Day. The Sheikh spoke at the Quds Day, making him and his organization very much related to it.

 

[Derec]

Saying one is skeptical of a claim because the source is sketchy is not a fallacy.

Not necessarily. But you have to show why you think a source is untrustworthy. Merely having a right political leaning is not sufficient, because almost every news outlet has some political leaning.

You employ the "genetic fallacy" whenever a lawyer makes a claim you do not like.

Except I provide evidence of previous false statements by lying shysters like Lee Merrit(less) and Benjamin Crump which discredit them. Jolly and the other one did not show Toronto Sun was in business of publishing fake news.

If people do not wish to discuss something that they think is probably not true, that is their perogative. Asking for substantiation of a claim is perfectly reasonable in these situations. Since you'd rather blow smoke instead of providing a more credible source, it is reasonable to conclude you have no credible source. They do not need to prove to anyone that the source in question is not credible. They are entitled to their opinions, just like you are.

They are entitled to their opinions, but when they state them they should back them up. They said Toronto Sun was untrustworthy but they have not backed them up.

ETA: The person in question is not the leader but a spokesperson. Big difference.

Not really. A spokesperson speaks for the organization. Besides, the organization has not distanced themselves from what the Sheikh said nor from the terrorist-supporting Quds Day.

And, as Ziprhead points out, he called for the eradication of Zionism not Isreal. Big difference.

No difference at all. Zionism is the movement to establish a Jewish state. Eradication of Zionism is the same as eradication of the State of Israel. Note the Iranian theocrats (and their lackeys and quislings) refer to Israel as "Zionist Entity" so the use of "Zionism" is not an indication that they mean something other than "Israel".
That is the aim of the Hezbollah terrorist which Al Quds Day is meant to support. That is the aim of the Iranian theocrats which organize the Al Quds Day. Nobody speaking at that event can claim ignorance of the goals of the event especially since Hezbollah flags are everywhere.

 

[ZiprHead]

Many extremist groups have a social wing. Hamas has one. Hezbollah has one. Doesn't make them anything other that fascistic terrorist groups though. Hell, even Nazis had a social wing.

Then point out this organization's extremist connection instead of smearing them by comparing them to Nazis and posting scare photos.

 

[WAB]

What I don't get here is: why is some religious nuttery seemingly perfectly acceptable to users here while other religious nuttery is (rightfully) slammed?

I don't exactly get a warm fuzzy feeling seeing flags with an assault rifle on them. Or that photo of a very young child carrying a picket that reads, "FOR WORLD PEACE ISRAEL MUST BE DESTROYED".

Children can't possibly formulate such ideas on their own, and it's a disgrace that any parent would so directly involve a child in their own political and/or religious passions.

Not that Christians don't use kids in the same way - I am merely questioning the reasoning behind giving one religious group a pass and condemning another.

 

[ZiprHead]

What I don't get here is: why is some religious nuttery seemingly perfectly acceptable to users here while other religious nuttery is (rightfully) slammed?

I don't exactly get a warm fuzzy feeling seeing flags with an assault rifle on them. Or that photo of a very young child carrying a picket that reads, "FOR WORLD PEACE ISRAEL MUST BE DESTROYED".

Straw man. None of us have warm fuzzies for those people. We do however object to bigotry and smearing of innocent people.

 

[WAB]

What I don't get here is: why is some religious nuttery seemingly perfectly acceptable to users here while other religious nuttery is (rightfully) slammed?

I don't exactly get a warm fuzzy feeling seeing flags with an assault rifle on them. Or that photo of a very young child carrying a picket that reads, "FOR WORLD PEACE ISRAEL MUST BE DESTROYED".

Straw man. None of us have warm fuzzies for those people. We do however object to bigotry and smearing of innocent people.

No straw. Many posters at TFT are clearly far more tolerant of Islam than of Christianity.

 

[laughing dog]

Not necessarily. But you have to show why you think a source is untrustworthy. Merely having a right political leaning is not sufficient, because almost every news outlet has some political leaning.

It may not be sufficient for you, but it only has to be sufficient for the reader in question.

Except I provide evidence of previous false statements by lying shysters like Lee Merrit(less) and Benjamin Crump which discredit them.

Not necessarily - you jump to the lying shyster bit without one bit of evidence about the lawyer or expert witness in question.

Not really.

Yes, really, a spokesperson is not necessarily a leader.

No difference at all.

Big difference. The state of Israel physically exists while Zionism is an idea/ideology.

 

[WAB]

I object to bigotry and the smearing of innocent people just as strongly as anyone else, hence my popping up whenever I see innocent people being smeared: as happens in the majority of threads harping on the intellectual capacities of religious people.

 

[ZiprHead]

What I don't get here is: why is some religious nuttery seemingly perfectly acceptable to users here while other religious nuttery is (rightfully) slammed?

I don't exactly get a warm fuzzy feeling seeing flags with an assault rifle on them. Or that photo of a very young child carrying a picket that reads, "FOR WORLD PEACE ISRAEL MUST BE DESTROYED".

Straw man. None of us have warm fuzzies for those people. We do however object to bigotry and smearing of innocent people.

No straw. Many posters at TFT are clearly far more tolerant of Islam than of Christianity.

Depends on the Christianity. The ones that want to discriminate, make irrational laws that favor their religion, or just makes themselves religious busy-bodies can fuck off.

You seem to have a huge problem with prioritization and nuance. Are you defending Christians, including the assholes that allow their children to die because they refuse to take them to proper medical care? Are we not supposed to speak out against such stupidity?

All Christians are not the same, all Muslims are not the same. When you can understand that basic aspect of humanity, maybe you'll figure out why your point is so wrong.

 

[WAB]

No straw. Many posters at TFT are clearly far more tolerant of Islam than of Christianity.

Depends on the Christianity. The ones that want to discriminate, make irrational laws that favor their religion, or just makes themselves religious busy-bodies can fuck off.

You seem to have a huge problem with prioritization and nuance. Are you defending Christians, including the assholes that allow their children to die because they refuse to take them to proper medical care? Are we not supposed to speak out against such stupidity?

All Christians are not the same, all Muslims are not the same. When you can understand that basic aspect of humanity, maybe you'll figure out why your point is so wrong.

My posts are decidedly moderate in all things religious and political (except for the period when I was sick and having religious mania - which I've discussed here at length). I don't condemn or defend groups. I defend innocent individuals. That means any individual who is not responsible for the actions of other members of whatever group they are a part of.

IOW: there are shitty Christians, such as the ones you mention who'll let their kids die rather than seek medical help, and there are good Christians. In fact, most Christians are perfectly normal, perfectly decent people, as most Muslims are perfectly normal, perfectly decent people.

IOW: I am NOT criticizing the innocent people who happened to attend that rally, but rather the ones who are not so innocent at all. There is nothing innocent in waving flags and calling for the destruction of a nation of people, despite that, obviously, there are many totally innocent and well-meaing people there. My initial post was to put forth the question: why is the irrational behavior not being criticized?

You asked: Are we not supposed to speak out against such stupidity? referring to the stupidity of certain Christians. Certainly! But who, besides Derec, is speaking out against the stupidity clearly in evidence among some of those people at that rally?

 

[Elixir]

...who, besides Derec, is speaking out against the stupidity clearly in evidence among some of those people at that rally?

Where, by "speaking out against" you mean "exemplifying"?

 

[WAB]

...who, besides Derec, is speaking out against the stupidity clearly in evidence among some of those people at that rally?

Where, by "speaking out against" you mean "exemplifying"?

I can't speak for Derec. I mentioned his name by way of referring to the fact that he's the only one (besides myself) who has offered anything critical of the behavior of some of the more radical people at the rally.

If this was a thread showing Christians at a rally holding flags and calling for the destruction of Islam, there would be the expected and totally justified outcry from members here.

But since some of these people are Muslims calling for the destruction of Israel, no sweat. It's just another fun festival in Canada.

 

[ZiprHead]

You asked: Are we not supposed to speak out against such stupidity? referring to the stupidity of certain Christians. Certainly! But who, besides Derec, is speaking out against the stupidity clearly in evidence among some of those people at that rally?

That rally and those photographs are being used by Derec to smear innocent Muslim people, people who were not participants nor anywhere near where this rally took place. Frankly it's a huge derail from the subject of this thread. How you can't see that is beyond me.

You claim you're trying to keep an open mind. Don't let it get too open to where your brain falls out.

 

[WAB]

You asked: Are we not supposed to speak out against such stupidity? referring to the stupidity of certain Christians. Certainly! But who, besides Derec, is speaking out against the stupidity clearly in evidence among some of those people at that rally?

That rally and those photographs are being used by Derec to smear innocent Muslim people, people who were not participants nor anywhere near where this rally took place. Frankly it's a huge derail from the subject of this thread. How you can't see that is beyond me.

You claim you're trying to keep an open mind. Don't let it get too open to where your brain falls out.

I got a better one!

From J.V. Cunningham, one of his famous epigrams:

The Humanist, whom no beliefs constrained,
Grew so broad-minded he was scatterbrained.

ETA: I find myself compelled to answer one of your remarkably inapt statements:

All Christians are not the same, all Muslims are not the same. When you can understand that basic aspect of humanity...

Take a look at my last couple dozen posts on these forums. You will plainly see that my primary reason for posting is to remind people that all people of ANY group are not the same.

You must not have read those posts. But really, go on and check, and let me know if you see anything anywhere where I suggest that all people X are the same.

I appreciate you agreeing with me on that issue, though, and of course it's not your fault that you haven't noticed my posts.

Article on the genesis of and other interesting things about al-Quds Day, from BBC News:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23448932