German police kill Afghan axe attacker
I don't think in Canada their rural location makes much difference at all. The whole place is wired up you know, 4G internet, broadband, cable, even Pokemon Go.
What is more relevant is that the vote was in Quebec, so in that respect I don't think it is at all representative of Canada as a whole. But let's not forget that the Quebeca have had two very, very close referenda about independence and I believe one of the main fears of the Quebecan people was the erosion of their French identity. No doubt I'll be corrected on this, but I am pretty sure that is accurate. Combined with what I read in a report that I posted a link to that described a huge difference in the opinions of Quebec residents and the rest of Canada with regards to immigration and other such issues. No, I don't think it is out of context or invalid at all, quite the contrary.
What is more relevant is that the vote was in Quebec, so in that respect I don't think it is at all representative of Canada as a whole. But let's not forget that the Quebeca have had two very, very close referenda about independence and I believe one of the main fears of the Quebecan people was the erosion of their French identity. No doubt I'll be corrected on this, but I am pretty sure that is accurate. Combined with what I read in a report that I posted a link to that described a huge difference in the opinions of Quebec residents and the rest of Canada with regards to immigration and other such issues. No, I don't think it is out of context or invalid at all, quite the contrary.
-
- Wun Gwo Pee
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:07 am
Jock Jock wrote:Nice one AC! Hey maybe one day you will graduate to forming your own arguments instead of bickering at the coat tails of mine.alanclarke72 wrote:ali baba wrote:[There are committees following Islamic teaching where people can voluntarily submit to non-binding arbitration if they wish. It's a few million miles from everyone being under sharia law.Jock Jock wrote:There are areas of the UK that are under Shariah law
Again, it's classic Jock Jock. He comes out with bold statements like 'areas of the UK being under Shariah law' and when the reality is shown to very very different, he completely ignores the facts, and starts off on another approach.
'Classic Jock Jock' kinda like that, almost sounds like a radio station.
It was my opinion, expressed several pages ago and backed up by information about how meaningless shariah courts are. Sadly you ignored it as you always do when confronted with facts instead of rhetoric.
'How meaningless Shariah courts are in the UK', if that is the case why did the telegraph write this back in 2014?alanclarke72 wrote:Jock Jock wrote:Nice one AC! Hey maybe one day you will graduate to forming your own arguments instead of bickering at the coat tails of mine.alanclarke72 wrote:ali baba wrote:[There are committees following Islamic teaching where people can voluntarily submit to non-binding arbitration if they wish. It's a few million miles from everyone being under sharia law.Jock Jock wrote:There are areas of the UK that are under Shariah law
Again, it's classic Jock Jock. He comes out with bold statements like 'areas of the UK being under Shariah law' and when the reality is shown to very very different, he completely ignores the facts, and starts off on another approach.
'Classic Jock Jock' kinda like that, almost sounds like a radio station.
It was my opinion, expressed several pages ago and backed up by information about how meaningless shariah courts are. Sadly you ignored it as you always do when confronted with facts instead of rhetoric.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... women.html
or the independent publish this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... women.html
Or any of the other countless articles and TV shows documenting the issue?
For fun?
Apparently Muslim women get the rough end of the stick, so perhaps you had better explain how meaningless Shariah courts are to them.
Face it AC, you believe whatever garbage you want to believe and the sad thing is you have swallowed so much of it, you are starting to believe it yourself.
-
- Wun Gwo Pee
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 8:07 am
Your last sentence if kind of funny, particularly because it exactly reflects your mental state. The articles clearly point out that these 'courts' act as advisory council on religious affairs (mostly marital) and have absolutely no legal standing.
You came on here and boldly claimed that a large swathe of the UK was under Shariah law. It isn't. You might have wanted to whip up this notion of people having their hands cut off for shoplifting a packet of biscuits at Tesco, because that would fit your fear-filled agenda.
Instead, what we have is a ridiculously benign situation where Shariah courts advise on marital and religious affairs to an audience that consult them for religious reasons, and that have absolutely no standing in UK law.
2016 is proving interesting in that no matter how many times you point out the facts to fanatic nutjobs, they hold onto their prejudices even tighter. We live in a strange world.
When are you retuning to work in the state that sponsors the islamic terrorism you're so fearful of? It's odd you see no irony there.
You came on here and boldly claimed that a large swathe of the UK was under Shariah law. It isn't. You might have wanted to whip up this notion of people having their hands cut off for shoplifting a packet of biscuits at Tesco, because that would fit your fear-filled agenda.
Instead, what we have is a ridiculously benign situation where Shariah courts advise on marital and religious affairs to an audience that consult them for religious reasons, and that have absolutely no standing in UK law.
2016 is proving interesting in that no matter how many times you point out the facts to fanatic nutjobs, they hold onto their prejudices even tighter. We live in a strange world.
When are you retuning to work in the state that sponsors the islamic terrorism you're so fearful of? It's odd you see no irony there.
No AC, I said there were pockets of Shariah law in the UK, where did you get the large swathes from? Oh yeah, your over active imagination. Nor did I mention anything about chopping hands off, again a figment of your imagination.alanclarke72 wrote:Your last sentence if kind of funny, particularly because it exactly reflects your mental state. The articles clearly point out that these 'courts' act as advisory council on religious affairs (mostly marital) and have absolutely no legal standing.
You came on here and boldly claimed that a large swathe of the UK was under Shariah law. It isn't. You might have wanted to whip up this notion of people having their hands cut off for shoplifting a packet of biscuits at Tesco, because that would fit your fear-filled agenda.
Instead, what we have is a ridiculously benign situation where Shariah courts advise on marital and religious affairs to an audience that consult them for religious reasons, and that have absolutely no standing in UK law.
2016 is proving interesting in that no matter how many times you point out the facts to fanatic nutjobs, they hold onto their prejudices even tighter. We live in a strange world.
When are you retuning to work in the state that sponsors the islamic terrorism you're so fearful of? It's odd you see no irony there.
Just for the record, UK law has no standing in Shariah law either, so I guess that's even.
No irony at all, as I have no fear at all, of pretty much anything, well apart from maybe Jose Mourinho going to manage Man United. Ironically Saudi streets are incredibly safe, you are probably far safer on the streets of Riyadh or Jeddah than you are on the streets of Manchester or London. Of course this is something you would know nothing about as maybe it would burst your holier than thou bubble? or maybe just because you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about?
I will reiterate, there are pockets of Shariah law in the UK, and as a quick 2 minute google search shows they are well documented by all sides of the media. Please prove me and google wrong, I'd be delighted.
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
As you noted previously "The terrorist groups are modular and encourage sympathisers to conduct lone wolf attacks in order to minimise the risk of being intercepted by authorities beforehand." The ones I'm referring to as "Leaders" are those ones, the ones who encourage sympathizers.ali baba wrote:This was a lone wolf with an axe on a train. No coordination, no preparation, no planning, no training (no pun). The UK has such intense anti-terror operations that it is all but impossible for terrorists to succeed unless they act alone, simplistically and in secret. The French seem to be more lax. Perhaps the police there waste time responding to burglaries instead of deploying 90% of their resources policing Muslims.Jacked Camry wrote:When I say "Leader" I mean the ones who are engaging with the broader community to set up these sleeper cells and decentralized groups. Yes, once set up they're more or less autonomous, but that's not what I would call leading. You don't see the leaders strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing up, they're well behind the scenes.
Both yourself and Jock Jock appear to be fixated on this idea that I am "boasting" about Canada. I'm trying to point out that there may be some lessons to be learned in the approach taken there that could possibly be of value in addressing this vexing problem elsewhere, that's all. I noted that it reflects broadly Canadian values which are strongly pro-immigrant, even when the immigrants are Muslim, that's all. You two seem to want to engage in some pissing match about Canada. Go ahead, doesn't bother me. I know what our values are.ali baba wrote:Canada could do more to value it's native population before it boasts about importing other people to polish it's reputation. It neglects indigenous women who are raped and murdered whilst sending troops to Africa to rescue schoolgirls from Boko Haram. You can't boast about providing jobs and housing for 20,000 Syrians when Europe has over 1 million and you shouldn't expect a pat on the back when you only help those who make international headlines.Jacked Camry wrote:Never said it was going to be easy, and they've certainly handicapped themselves in Europe by letting things fester in isolation and not insisting on the measures, some of which you've identified, that would be effective. But we can't change our geographic situation or history, we're just doing what we can to ensure they join the majority of Canadians who immigrate and become productive peaceful members of society. I'm not saying this is the blueprint for Europe, I'm saying that there are some ways forward that ought to be looked at and Canada provides some useful examples of how to do this. As do the Danish it seems (from the other link I posted).
I am not saying that Canada is an exemplar for how to treat the native indigenous population or what our sending troops to contribute to multinational peacekeeping efforts has to do with the issue and I have no idea why you bring it up.
I am not sure that this would affect country shopping, but as noted I'm not particularly knowledgeable or interested in the issue with respect to Europe. But there are always problems when you start putting different rules in place for different people.ali baba wrote:To deter country shopping. Turkey is a safe peaceful country but millions would rather risk drowning (or risk their kids drowning whilst they stay put) than live their because Europe is wealthier and has better job prospects. If you want immigrants to integrate then you should minimise their oppourtunities to isolate and segregate themselves.Jacked Camry wrote:Don't know about why one would ban new mosques/schools, nothing wrong with them so long as they're monitored to ensure they're not preaching hate/Wahhabist medievalism. Similarly, I see nothing wrong with Halal food and circumcision - would you ban Kosher food and circumcision for Jews?
I value bodily integrity and minimisng animal suffering over supporting archaic supposition. If you think animals should bleed to death whilst remaining concious then you are following the letter of Mohammed's teachings, not the spirit. We've already banned (but failed to prosecute) female circumcision and MENA migrants happily fly their daughters home to have their labias sliced off. I value post-enlightenment and post-feminist values over enabling the abusive practices of the most regressive and backwards populations on Earth.
If you don't believe in eating Kosher or Halal food, or are vegan, I have no problem with that. However, for those who do believe in it, I have no problem with their eating meat prepared in that way. Should the food industry be reformed and improved? Sure. Where do you want to start? Again, you run into problems when you make different rules for different people, and when your personal preferences or beliefs become the basis for the law.
I don't believe that male and female circumcision are parallel issues; the male circumcision does not remove pleasure from sex and had some health and other benefits also. If you don't agree with it, then don't do it to your son. But leave those alone who want to.
Really? This is a parallel to religious practices and beliefs that have been in place for millennia? When you make absurdist arguments like Jock Jock, then you just aren't taken seriously and there's no point to even debating with you.ali baba wrote:In Britain it is customary to spend your weekends getting shit faced by 11PM, urinating and vomiting all over the streets and have sex on the bus ride home. Should I maintain this delightful characteristic of small town England whilst living in Cambodia?Jacked Camry wrote:These are small things that symbolically mean a lot and contribute to harmony and happiness for communities who want to maintain their distinctive characteristics while integrating within the national culture. Your other measures seem reasonable enough, but as I haven't lived in Europe I can't really comment since I don't understand the issues well enough.
Same thing. If you argue nonsensically about the validity of an election or try to compare something with a sample size of 1,000 people with that, you're not serious, you're simply trying to wave your dick around. Go ahead. I'm not going to waste my time with idiocy.ali baba wrote:I was responding to this comment specifically. The majority of Canadians did not vote Liberal and I doubt those that did identified their policy on refugees as their primary motive. Obviously the primary motivation was marijuana legalisation.Jacked Camry wrote:The majority of Canadians voted for this government and that is their policy.
Yes, most definitely this is a parallel to religious beliefs that have been in place for millennia as it is our way of life and always has been. This is documented throughout our illustrious literary history and indeed is our custom and practice, Possibly not the urinating and vomiting, but spending the evening drinking socially to inebriation, yes that is without question part and parcel of our culture. Unfortunately it doesn't include any ridiculous notions like coming back to life three days after you are crucified or virgins giving birth, or floods that cover the entire world or parting rivers or reincarnation into another animal or even prophets ascending to the heavens on winged horses either, but an integral and ancient part of our culture, it most definitely is.Jacked Camry wrote:Really? This is a parallel to religious practices and beliefs that have been in place for millennia? When you make absurdist arguments like Jock Jock, then you just aren't taken seriously and there's no point to even debating with you.ali baba wrote: In Britain it is customary to spend your weekends getting shit faced by 11PM, urinating and vomiting all over the streets and have sex on the bus ride home. Should I maintain this delightful characteristic of small town England whilst living in Cambodia?
Of course if I behaved like that in Qatar or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, I would be arrested, flogged and deported, if I was lucky and that would just be for one glass. I always adhere to the laws and customs of the countries I live in, whether I like them or not. Sadly neither some Muslims nor some Muslim countries allow us anything like the levels of tolerance we grant them when we are in their countries. For example why don't you try asking if you can build a church in Tabuk or something? I think you might find that you either are or are bordering on the laws of apostacy and therefore could be executed for even suggesting the idea.
And let's not get on to the sentences handed out to rape victims.
Basically, if I go to live and work in another country I adhere to their rules and laws, I embrace their culture and I certainly wouldn't dream of demanding that the laws be changed to suit my own personal beliefs, wouldn't dream of it.
Yet us in the West, allow them every freedom in the world, their own places of worship, change our laws to accommodate their beliefs etc etc.
Disclaimer: I am not saying that all Muslims are bad people, I would not dream of it, the vast majority are of course good , god fearing people. What I am commenting on is the ludicrous imbalance in the tolerance levels shown by Islamic countries compared to their western counterparts towards migrants and visitors (apart from Canada of course where they recently voted against a new Mosque in Quebec).
- spitthedog
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 123
- Posts: 5716
- Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:19 pm
Couldn't you say the same about Wales with the English though?Jock Jock wrote:What I am commenting on is the ludicrous imbalance in the tolerance levels shown by Islamic countries compared to their western counterparts towards migrants and visitors...
Pulls head back below parapet
"I don't care what the people are thinking, i ain't drunk i'm just drinking"
Not at all, and I know full well how much there is to boast about in Canada.Jacked Camry wrote: Both yourself and Jock Jock appear to be fixated on this idea that I am "boasting" about Canada.
I just thought it was a bit bloody rich for you to start harping on about how we can solve the world's migration and terrorism problems by just following Canada's model, when within the last few weeks or so, Canadian citizens voted against a new Mosque in their town.
You argue that this is not representative of Canada. I agree wholeheartedly, however I think you might find that the vote is in at least some way, extremely representative of the views of the people of Quebec, particularly those who fear for the loss of their French identity.
The expression about glass houses certainly sprang to mind.
Most definitely, particularly where the serving of afternoon tea is concerned.spitthedog wrote:Couldn't you say the same about Wales with the English though?Jock Jock wrote:What I am commenting on is the ludicrous imbalance in the tolerance levels shown by Islamic countries compared to their western counterparts towards migrants and visitors...
Pulls head back below parapet
- Jacked Camry
- Is the World Outside still there ?
- Reactions: 2
- Posts: 5674
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:53 pm
I in no way claimed to know how to solve the world's migration and terrorism problems, however I offered some reasonable suggestions stemming from the Canadian experience that could be instructive. You of course, immediately chime in with absurd hyperbole about what I've said, and when I ask you to show me where I said what you claim, you switch tack and never respond. Classic trolling.Jock Jock wrote:Not at all, and I know full well how much there is to boast about in Canada.Jacked Camry wrote: Both yourself and Jock Jock appear to be fixated on this idea that I am "boasting" about Canada.
I just thought it was a bit bloody rich for you to start harping on about how we can solve the world's migration and terrorism problems by just following Canada's model, when within the last few weeks or so, Canadian citizens voted against a new Mosque in their town.
You argue that this is not representative of Canada. I agree wholeheartedly, however I think you might find that the vote is in at least some way, extremely representative of the views of the people of Quebec, particularly those who fear for the loss of their French identity.
The expression about glass houses certainly sprang to mind.
I am a Canadian, and I have no issues with immigration or Muslim immigrants having mosques, eating Halal or with male circumcision. Same with pretty much all my friends and family. That's like 300 Canadian people. Based on your logic, I can now claim that Canada is indeed a highly tolerant country where a significant number of people have no issues with Muslims. After all, my highly selective sample from one place tells me so. This is the sort of statistical ignorance that demonstrates only that you are lacking in basic analytical and math skills. Like many other people, I'll just keep stringing you along so that you argue yourself into a corner as you've done again by clinging to this pathetic poll in Quebec and various other irrelevant issues. Nobody can possibly take you (or Ali Baba) seriously so long as you attempt these obfuscations and sophistry.
-
- Permanently Banned
- Reactions: 94
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:42 am
if you believe in the Torah ,New Testament or Koran youré a fucking idiot. Some of these believers do good things but are delusional . If people weren't indoctrinated from birth by fucking idiots especially muslims and jews the world would be a better place.
- ali baba
- "Suit up!"
- Reactions: 12
- Posts: 2982
- Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 5:46 am
- Location: Equadorian Embassy
Oh. When you said leader I pictured generals and colonels making war plans and sending orders down the chain of command.Jacked Camry wrote:As you noted previously "The terrorist groups are modular and encourage sympathisers to conduct lone wolf attacks in order to minimise the risk of being intercepted by authorities beforehand." The ones I'm referring to as "Leaders" are those ones, the ones who encourage sympathizers.
It's a PR move intended to gain lots of positive attention in the press at minimal cost. The European parallel would be Merkell taking selfies in refugee camps in order to promote an image of being generous and caring to desperate peoples after forcing brutal austerity down the throats of southern Europe in order to maintain a AAA credit rating. Unfortunately she underestimated how many immigrants would rush in to take up her offer of generosity.Jacked Camry wrote:I am not saying that Canada is an exemplar for how to treat the native indigenous population or what our sending troops to contribute to multinational peacekeeping efforts has to do with the issue and I have no idea why you bring it up.
You presented the arrival of 20,000 thoroughly screened and vetted Syrians into Canada as somehow comparable to millions of boat people spontaneously turning up on Europe's shores, which is ridiculous. You don't have to worry that there may be numerous jihadis sailing over to martyr themselves on your streets since you spent over 2 years investigating every possible arrival! You don't have to worry about them forming a critical mass and self segregating in ghettos because their numbers are underwhelming. Your vetting procedures insure that those who are unwilling or unable to assimilate are unlikely to be granted asylum and those that gain asylum will have difficulty maintaining close ties to their home countries because they are thousands of miles away.
I don't know how you reached that conclusion. European countries have equality before the law and chopping off girls' labia is illegal regardless of whether you are British, French or Pakistani born. Laws apply to territory. It doesn't matter where you were born. It matters where you live.Jacked Camry wrote:I am not sure that this would affect country shopping, but as noted I'm not particularly knowledgeable or interested in the issue with respect to Europe. But there are always problems when you start putting different rules in place for different people.
Of course our personal preferences and beliefs form the basis of law. How else would you govern society? My personal preference is not to mutilate the bodies of infants. If you wish to chop off your daughters labia go live in Pakistan. If you want to chop off the hands of thieves and stone rape victims to death try Saudi Arabia. Torturing animals isn't a personal preference or consumer choice that should be tolerated and the restrictions are placed on businesses- farms, slaughterhouses, retailers- not individuals.Jacked Camry wrote:If you don't believe in eating Kosher or Halal food, or are vegan, I have no problem with that. However, for those who do believe in it, I have no problem with their eating meat prepared in that way. Should the food industry be reformed and improved? Sure. Where do you want to start? Again, you run into problems when you make different rules for different people, and when your personal preferences or beliefs become the basis for the law.
Female circumcision ranges from piercing the clitoris, which is less intrusive than male circumcision to removing the labia, which is much more intrusive. I'd like to foot bind my daughter so that she won't be able to walk properly. Would you preach tolerance here too?Jacked Camry wrote:I don't believe that male and female circumcision are parallel issues; the male circumcision does not remove pleasure from sex and had some health and other benefits also. If you don't agree with it, then don't do it to your son. But leave those alone who want to.
So being backwards and regressive denotes legitimacy now? Do ancient feudal societies have more legitimacy than youthful liberal ones? Capital and corporal punishment have been practiced for millenia and public executions and floggings were popular in many societies throughout history. Surely this makes such practices superior to considerations for rehabilitation and human rights.Jacked Camry wrote:Really? This is a parallel to religious practices and beliefs that have been in place for millennia? When you make absurdist arguments like Jock Jock, then you just aren't taken seriously and there's no point to even debating with you.
Or reading comprehension apparently. How is 40% of anything a majority?Jacked Camry wrote:Same thing. If you argue nonsensically about the validity of an election or try to compare something with a sample size of 1,000 people with that, you're not serious, you're simply trying to wave your dick around. Go ahead. I'm not going to waste my time with idiocy.
Don't through a spazz just because you're claim was refuted.Simple Definition of majority
: a number that is greater than half of a total
: a number of votes that is more than half of the total number
: the group or party that is the greater part of a large group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/majority
C'mere c'meye
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
German police probe nurse who used ‘saline solution in place of’ BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine
by Flea » Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:12 pm » in 'Not' Cambodia - 0 Replies
- 755 Views
-
Last post by Flea
Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:12 pm
-
-
-
Extremely peaceful attacker stabbed a diverse crowd
by Fred Edwards » Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:28 am » in 'Not' Cambodia - 18 Replies
- 2297 Views
-
Last post by Fred Edwards
Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:13 am
-
-
-
Female police officers accuse Kampong Thom police commissioner of sexual abuse
by Bong Burgundy » Wed Aug 12, 2020 6:56 pm » in Cambodia News - 8 Replies
- 10517 Views
-
Last post by Bong Burgundy
Tue Sep 08, 2020 7:01 pm
-
-
-
Joke about police is not funny, says police
by Bong Burgundy » Thu May 21, 2020 1:02 pm » in Cambodia News - 3 Replies
- 4886 Views
-
Last post by Playboy
Thu May 21, 2020 3:29 pm
-