inchman

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    1,467
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

inchman last won the day on March 21 2016

inchman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

501 Excellent

3 Followers

About inchman

  • Rank
    5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,456 profile views
  1. Notwithstanding, the views of a single anonymous person posting a diatribe on YouTube does nothing to sway my opinion. Even if he really is an Egyptian, I have as much right to speak for Canada or Protestants as The Pharaoh has for Muslims or Egypt... probably more. At least I don't hide behind a handle that hides my identity. A YouTube video doesn't make someone smart or right.
  2. Found the link on YouTube directly and indicated it above. I was concerned that the original address was a spoof.
  3. Link isn't a link, DEF. But, in addition, it has a funny URL. Instead of youtube.com, it is youtu.be. Personally, I wouldn't load or click a link a site that appeared to try to spoof a legit site. See my message below before clicking on Kip's embedded link. Not sure why it is showing up as YouTu.be above. The link directly to YouTube is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeQlNvnHnX8
  4. I still don't understand why news agencies continue to feed the hope of infamy for future terrorists by repeating the names and showing the photos of the cowards who carry out these acts. I can understand it up to the point of capture or death of this scum so that either of those conditions may be effected, but after that, they should be relegated to anonymity, not made heroes of. Much of the inspiration for terrorist acts (whether religious or random) is the desire to become famous. Take that away, and at least some of them would go away. In the case of Germanwings, the copilot even told his girlfriend that he wanted do do something that would make people remember him. The media gave him exactly what he wanted and gave hope of "respect" to the next guy who might do something as heinous.
  5. It was GWB's "liberation" of Iraq that gave ISIS the foothold that they needed to get started. ISIS wasn't even on the radar in 2001. As is often the case, "hundreds of millions of dollars worth" of advanced military equipment left behind in the hands of "friendlies" by the US in Iraq came to be used by the enemy (ISIS) as Sunni areas fell to ISIS, supported by Iran due to their forced isolation. The isolation of Iran and Syria that was initiated by the US caused them to have nothing to lose and the hatred of the US that ensued encouraged them to support (or at least not oppose) ISIS. Funny (not funny-ha-ha) how isolated and marginalized groups find a way to "get ya back".
  6. While I disagree with the concept, if any group should have a modicum of support for it, it should be us .... Think of the potential increase in air traffic if all the rich people gave money to those who could not afford to travel (or had wasted their money on other things). . Think about how it would help our economy if people who wanted something just had someone else who had earned the money pay for it. Oh.... we already have that... it's called the NDP. Nevermind.
  7. DEF, Islamic women in Canada have as much legal control over what they wear as Mennonite or Hutterite women or men wear or what Sikh or Jewish men wear. In all of these religions, there are norms and expectations as to clothing and coverage based on religious and social tradition. It is up to the individual, from a legal perspective, as to what they want to wear and whether they accept their particular slice of society's norms. There are familial consequences for not obeying your spouse or your parents based on their expectations. Some would just rather follow their family's guidance. I know women in Dubai who wear the niqab (full black) in public due to pressure from their families, but remove it indoors amongst friends. Others might keep it on all the time. It is legal in Ontario for a woman to walk down the street topless. But, I tell you, if I ever saw my daughter doing so, she would get a whoopin' and I could be charged with assault, just as an Islamic father could be for assaulting his daughter for not wearing a head scarf. The beauty of it is that, when they come to Canada, our laws allow them to make the choice to follow their family's direction or find their own. That may not be the case where they came from.
  8. Well, Kip, thank you for your service. If you want to call that patronizing, then so be it. Notwithstanding, having been "in" it doesn't mean that your opinion counts any more than mine or that it is right or that you love this country more than me. It also doesn't give any individual the right to define what values the flag stands for. The flag stands for the values contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We just can't choose to make up new ones or exceptions to that document. Virtually every modern society stands for the same values contained in it so it can't be that wrong. If it means that the freedoms it provides other leaves us vulnerable to occasional risks, that is part of the price to pay for our own freedom. Freedom battles are not always fought on other people's turf. Millions of Canadians did not serve in the military. As a matter of fact, I would suggest all but a few hundred thousand. I just happen to be one of those who didn't wear a uniform. When I considered it, the CF air division was shrinking and consisted of just a bunch of clapped out old aircraft and a few new ones on order that I would be too big to fit in. So, I decided not to take that path. Most of the people from my generation who went into the military did so mostly because the airlines stopped hiring. They have personally told me so. It doesn't make me weaker to have not served. I would be as willing as any soldier to die for the freedoms provided to me and others in my country. As far as taking action to defend my country's values, I don't know if you noticed or not, but I am doing it right here. There were many times in history when people should have spoken up in the face of racism and religious hatred based on innuendo and regretted not having done so. I would even defend DEFCON's right to have his views. But I will use my right of free speech to disagree and debate them as I see fit. Otherwise, only one side would be heard and people would think that that was the only and populist perspective.
  9. I feel very strongly about our flag, too, Kip, but I feel more strongly about the values that it represents than any physical piece of cloth. If someone desecrates the Canadian flag, I will defend it up to the point of where the values that it represents are not compromised. No further. For if one crosses that line, they, themselves no longer deserve to call it theirs. The Canadian flag stands for many very good things... tolerance, acceptance, freedom from persecution, freedom from prejudice, freedom of religion, fairness, the rule of law... I'm not suggesting that you are doing this but, to wrap oneself in a flag and claim to act on its behalf while compromising the very tenets of its being is not defending it... in fact it desecrates it even more than any fire or foot.
  10. In that post, there are examples where maybe a dozen individuals are burning flags (I didn't bother counting). It does not mean that the majority of Muslims hate other countries or the west in general. I would guess that many are standing by, saying nothing, because they are afraid to stand up against what appears to be an overwhelming opinion. The fact is that, if people like me and Boestar didn't speak up against the generalizations presented here that lead to racism, someone reading this board would think that we were ALL a bunch of Muslim haters.
  11. I wouldn't have to be an apologist if there wasn't those who want to incite hate and fear and promote bigotry by presenting rhetoric and selective evidence to bring a bad light against a largely peaceful and law abiding people. I don't defend the individuals who perpetrate crimes and use a radical interpretation of a religion as an excuse to do so. But neither do I suffer those who would use people's religion to incite hate in the hopes that I might prevent others from falling into the trap. Generally, moderate people try to avoid the confrontation so it appears on the surface that they are in agreement with the person with the hateful view. Some stand by just to avoid the fight. I just don't happen to be one of those people. We'll see whose post gets the most likes.
  12. Ok, I was wrong. There have been some beheadings in the west. There have been some by non-muslims, too. We could go back and forth on this forever. Many of the people in these examples are native born in the country of commission so are not part of the feared cohort of immigrants. Most of them would be considered mentally deficient or insane and clearly misinterpreted the intent of Islam or there would be thousands of these killings by the faithful followers of Muhammed. How do we explain the low numbers if it is every Muslim's requirement to kill the infidels? This is a list of 11 crimes over a period of 11 years. Not exactly endemic. Certainly terrible for the victims and their families, but Americans killed over 12,000 of their fellow countrymen in 2013. I'm sure many of them were quite gruesome, many quite "clean", but all have the same end result... death and despair. The bottom line is that Americans are much more at risk to die at the hands of Christians than they are at the hands of Muslims, especially immigrants.
  13. Maverick, None of those atrocities that you point out can be singled out as belonging to Muslims alone. Gang rapes have occurred in every war. I don't know of any Muslim gang rapes in any western nation other than the groping that occurred in Germany. Gang rapes have occurred in recent years in India and lots occur every year in the US perpetrated by 'educated' college males. In 2010, there was almost 200,000 rapes in the US. Over 50% of gang rapes in the US are perpetrated by groups within fraternities. Many ethnic groups exercise their own "laws". I grew up in Hamilton and there was lots of "management" going on. Certainly, beheading occurs. Haven't heard of any of it west of the Nile. It is perpetrated on the war ground by the worst of the criminals. You don't have to look long on Google to find similar or worse physical crimes that have occurred in recent years in the US by white Americans in peacetime against their fellow citizens.
  14. I'm starting to see your point of view, DEFCON. I found the following passages that show the violence of the Quran. I shall terrorize the [heathens]. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose Muhammed and his apostle. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. Who so fighteth in the way of Muhammed, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes. Fight them until there is no more [disbelief or worshipping of other gods] and worship is for Muhammed alone. Except they are from the Holy Bible. (I substituted Muhammed for God) http://www.alternet.org/30-most-violent-exhortations-bible-torah-and-quran
  15. After his flight (al-hijra) from Mecca in 622 Mohammad with his followers settled in Yathrib, subsequently renamed Medina al-Nabi ('City of the Prophet') where he managed to draw up a 'social contract',[18] widely referred to as the 'Constitution of Medina'.[19] This contract, known as the Leaf (ṣaḥīfa) upheld the peaceful coexistence between Muslims, Jews and Christians, defining them all, under given conditions, as constituting the umma, or community of that city, and granting the latter freedom of religious thought and practice.[20] Yathrib/Medina was not homogeneous. Alongside the 200 odd emigrants from Mecca (theMuhājirūn), who had followed Mohammad, its population consisted of the Faithful of Medina (Anṣār, 'the helpers'), Arab pagans, three Jewish tribes and some Christians.[21] The foundational 'constitution' sought to establish, for the first time in history according to Ali Khan, a formal agreement guaranteeing interfaith conviviality, albeit ringed with articles emphasizing strategic cooperation in the defense of the city. In paragraph 16 of this document, it states that:'Those Jews who follow us are entitled to our aid and support so long as they shall not have wronged us or lent assistance (to any enemies) against us'. Paragraph 37 has it that 'To the Jews their own expenses and to the Muslims theirs. They shall help one another in the event of any attack on the people covered by this document. There shall be sincere friendship, exchange of good counsel, fair conduct and no treachery between them.'[22] The three local Jewish tribes were the Banu Nadir, the Banu Qurayza, and the Banu Qaynuqa. While Mohammad clearly had no prejudice against them, and appears to have regarded his own message as substantially the same as that received by Jews on Sinai,[23] tribal politics, and Mohammad's deep frustration at Jewish refusals to accept his prophethood,[24] quickly led to a break with all three. Unfortunate linguistic misunderstandings may also have given the impression, evidenced in the Quran, that the Jewish community was publicly humiliating Mohammad.[25] I don't really see anything in this that would suggest that death to Jews is part of Mohammad's teachings. In fact, quite the opposite. I would be happy to read anything not put forward as "truth" by radical Christians, Jews or Muslims that clearly states that death to Jews is part of true Islam. It was not too many years ago (less than 75) that Jews were "hated" in Canada by Christians and the government. Boatloads of Jewish refugees were refused access to Canada and sent back to sea during Hitler's reign. I'm not sure if anyone ever found out where they went. It used to be illegal to be gay in Canada, women were denied the ability to work or vote and participate freely in society without their husbands. This was all less than 100 years ago... some of it less than 30 years ago. And somehow we expect people who rarely had access to anything outside their village and lived under the auspices of their local leaders to give up their history of blind faith for a leader. I agree that some radical Muslim leaders are using outrageous interpretations of the Quran to disseminate hate against the west and Israel to members of their "army" who have little ability even to read their own bible, let alone make up their own minds about what is right or wrong. Just like a few leaders in our own society use untruths and rhetoric to try to gain power and respect they don't deserve. Mr. Trump's current ability to cause minor riots is just another example of how even relatively smart (and I use that word loosely), but ignorant, people can be taught to emit hatred and violate the very tenets of our modern society by just a few well spoken words, to the end purpose of the speaker gaining power.