Canadian Muslim group raided, funneled money to Hamas

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I assumed you were taking that type of stance which is why I haven't chickened out and left the thread even though the more I post the more fuel it is for the people that dislike me (the usual suspects giving thanks in the anti-EE posts). I'm outspoken and opinionated and that doesn't mesh well with some people but I'm not going to let someone call me a bigot and turn the other cheek as that's simply going too far IMO. I knew what I was doing (calling him an idiot) and was willing to face the consequences as long as things were fair and the other guy was also disciplined.

You are correct that the tit doesn't justify tat and this definitely doesn't make this a better place but I really wish some of these sensitive people could respond in more of a "don't you think that's racist" rather than taking the easy route and calling people "racist". That alone would have kept the discussion civil and on topic.

Really though how interesting is this discussion? How can you really separate the actual discussion when a lot of the people posting would be in unison ganging up on me regardless of the topic as long as there was something to latch on to as an excuse? Flameswin and MMF have attacked me in this thread but not regarding the the racism so you must fully realize that this goes much deeper than the whole "racist" discussion no?

I don't know if it possible to have a discussion like this without it being emotionally charged. It's a bit like the threads about religion, or sometimes politics. They all seem to go sideways. So do we just eliminate those topics on this site, or hope that within the noise and bickering - some actual meaningful debate happens.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

Religion.

to simplistic of an answer.

Part of it is religion.

Part of it is a very Machiavellian strategy. of keeping your people poor and hungry so that you can blame their anger on outside influence creating a us against outside evils dynamic, and if your people are poor and hungry they're too busy trying to survive to rise up against the government.

to add to that theory its the whole people will accept dominance if they believe that their leaders are appointed through divinity.

Part of it is absolute corruption and incompetence. If you put power hungry, inexperienced and sometimes stupid people in power your going to piss away any resources and wealth that your country has.

Religion is one aspect and a small aspect on why those countries are in the condition that they are in.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by polak

Where in my posts did I say I have a problem with the vast majority of muslims? Not once did I say that. I have a problem with countries where 40-60% of the population thinks violence in the name of islam is justified and I also said that there is a responsibility in those regions for the non-violent muslims to correct the issue.

Ummm, cause that's the only thing I could think of making sense in the context you put it in?

Its not like those people have a choice. Are people in Saudi Arabia supposed to just vote for a new tolerant government?

There was a recent story where a Saudi blogger criticized Islamic clerics there and was sentenced to 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison.

These people are oppressed by brutal regimes, even if they avoid all the religious propaganda they have no voice to lash out with.

And now we have people painting them as being part of the problem because they won't simply speak out.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by erick estrada

i assumed you were taking that type of stance which is why i haven't chickened out and left the thread even though the more i post the more fuel it is for the people that dislike me (the usual suspects giving thanks in the anti-ee posts). i'm outspoken and opinionated and that doesn't mesh well with some people but i'm not going to let someone call me a bigot and turn the other cheek as that's simply going too far imo. I knew what i was doing (calling him an idiot) and was willing to face the consequences as long as things were fair and the other guy was also disciplined.

you are correct that the tit doesn't justify tat and this definitely doesn't make this a better place but i really wish some of these sensitive people could respond in more of a "don't you think that's racist" rather than taking the easy route and calling people "racist". That alone would have kept the discussion civil and on topic.

Really though how interesting is this discussion? How can you really separate the actual discussion when a lot of the people posting would be in unison ganging up on me regardless of the topic as long as there was something to latch on to as an excuse? Flameswin and mmf have attacked me in this thread but not regarding the the racism so you must fully realize that this goes much deeper than the whole "racist" discussion no?

you're not really mad at iran or afghanistan.
You're mad at the fact that your wife can't stand you anymore.
You don't know where she is.
You're going crazy in your basement hole...

Clicking your remote control,
spitting insults at the screen...

'cause tomorrow you're back at work,
where you can't stand being the little man.
Despite your grovelling, you can't get ahead.

No one really laughs at your stories anymore.
You're too cynical and mean, so they've ####ed off bored.
Your kids are at the mall.
They just sit and stare at the wall.

you think you tell it like it is.
You say you can't stand bleeding hearts.

But every single day,
you just sit there bleeding for yourself.
You whine and cry in your manly voice.
This is your life.

you do it to yourself, take the load off your mind.
Go out into the world, you'll see, you'll probably survive.
This is your life.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't know if it possible to have a discussion like this without it being emotionally charged. It's a bit like the threads about religion, or sometimes politics. They all seem to go sideways. So do we just eliminate those topics on this site, or hope that within the noise and bickering - some actual meaningful debate happens.

Its up to people to self filter.

I'm probably the worst at lashing out when I'm insulted, that's why I've cut my presence way back on this board and especially on political and religious based threads.

But by saying that you're going to cut off certain topics because they become lightning rods is to deny a fundamental truth. People are always going to debate from an emotional place.

[nik-]

If I'm not frothing at the mouth, I don't even bother to post.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I don't know if it possible to have a discussion like this without it being emotionally charged. It's a bit like the threads about religion, or sometimes politics. They all seem to go sideways. So do we just eliminate those topics on this site, or hope that within the noise and bickering - some actual meaningful debate happens.

Good post. My vote on this is clear - eliminate and ban (not that I was asked to vote ). This is a hockey forum with lighthearted banter in the off-topic forums. While people's attitudes, logic and behaviours towards professional sports are very similar to religious attitudes, logic and behaviours, the sports debates are way more fun than religious and political debates. Arguments about religions and world politics always lead to the elevated levels of emotional distress to many participants and further affect what could be a good conversation between them in other non-related topics.

[JetsFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Matata

I think the violence is less of a 'Muslim' thing and more of a 'western governments have been destabilizing, exploiting and bringing war to these areas for decades' sort of thing.

This is the real story, you hit the nail on the head. Islam as a religion of hate is propaganda to justify our own violence against them. Muslims have hated Israel for thousands of years, but their hatred of the west is very much a new fad. We really have no where to point the finger but at ourselves. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Its not like those people have a choice. Are people in Saudi Arabia supposed to just vote for a new tolerant government?

Originally Posted by Igottago

There was a recent where a Saudi blogger criticized Islamic clerics there and was sentenced to 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison.

These people are oppressed by brutal regimes, even if they avoid all the religious propaganda they have no voice to lash out with.

And now we have people painting them as being part of the problem because they won't simply speak out.

I specifically gave credit to those that speak out in those regions:

Originally Posted by polak

I am aware that there are people in these Muslim countries that are speaking out and fighting for equality and condemning extremism and I have upmost respect for them as what they are doing is far more dangerous and courageous then anything I have ever done in my life.

The problem is, there's still no noticeable reform. No change happening. How come catholics are able to pressure their leaders to change their stances on a variety of issues such as birth control? Why can't islam do the same? Where's the disconnect? There lies the problem.

That's what I was getting at. Something has to give eventually. How about western mosques cut off all contact and financial contributions with islamic countries where the majority of muslims support shira law or something to that effect? I'm aware that would create huge problems but what else do you suggest? What's going to change to stop extremism?

The point I've been trying to get across in my posts in this thread is that reform is needed and it's not our responsibility. There needs to be a reform on their behalf in order to fix these issues. This isn't a problem in any other religion, yet I'm villianized by you guys for pointing that out.

[fatso]

am I wrong that the article actually says it is IRFAN and not MAC that was the subject of the warrant? The only allegation against MAC in the warrant is this handing over of an envelope to an IRFAN member, which the RCMP says "may" have contained cash.

The fact that MAC was funding IRFAN between 2001 and 2010 isn't even in dispute because the RCMP claims they know about it through MAC's CRA disclosure (i.e. MAC was reporting it all to the government). Is that really that sketchy? In fact, MAC even stopped funding IRFAN four years before the government called them a terrorist group.

Isn't this just intentionally misleading by the SUN (or rather, appropriately leading to those who harbour anti-muslim suspicions)? Or am I not understanding the article? I have to say it is poorly written.

In any event, I don't want to pile on EE, but he deserves the calling out he is getting. What he said was bigoted, straight up. But even if someone can't understand that from the explanations provided by those like Jammies, the posting style deserves criticism.

EE has the second post in, and hasn't even bothered to comment on the article in any way, but instead runs a one-line troll of an entire religion. Why do posters even bother posting articles or asking specific questions if it's just going to instantly become a bash-fest of the broadest section of people? It's the same with articles pertaining to First Nations people. Every time, it almost immediately devolves into a criticism of First Nations (look at that article rubecube posted the other day). I get that discussions eventually degenerate, but it seems like lately they do so in the first 10 posts and there's not even any pretence of having read the article or trying to offer any kind of insight on the issues raised. It's just a chance to bemoan other groups' conduct (Canuck fans notwithstanding).

Was the CP Off-Topic forum always like this? I've noted that some really smart, insightful frequent posters stay away from these kinds of threads. It's a shame because I think they would add a lot, but I can't say I blame them. They may rightly feel it's not worth it.

[polak]

Well when the post that sent the topic off the rails was post #2. It's kind of unavoidable.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Igottago

There was a recent story where a Saudi blogger criticized Islamic clerics there and was sentenced to 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison.

The lashes are done 50 at a time. Poor guy had the first 50 a week or so ago. He was suppossed to get his second 50 lashes last week, but he hasn't recovered from the first 50 lashes. So they need to wait for him to heal enough to recieve the next 50 lashes. After that he will only have 900 more to go. Hard to imagine that this happens in this day and age.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

The lashes are done 50 at a time. Poor guy had the first 50 a week or so ago. He was suppossed to get his second 50 lashes last week, but he hasn't recovered from the first 50 lashes. So they need to wait for him to heal enough to recieve the next 50 lashes. After that he will only have 900 more to go. Hard to imagine that this happens in this day and age.

Its pretty despicable.

Chances are he won't survive the lashes let alone the prison sentence.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Its pretty despicable.

Chances are he won't survive the lashes let alone the prison sentence.

The biggest source of extremist ideology is Saudi Arabia, not to mention funding for terrorist groups.

Yet the West is perfectly content to look the other way when economics are involved.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by burn_baby_burn

The lashes are done 50 at a time. Poor guy had the first 50 a week or so ago. He was suppossed to get his second 50 lashes last week, but he hasn't recovered from the first 50 lashes. So they need to wait for him to heal enough to recieve the next 50 lashes. After that he will only have 900 more to go. Hard to imagine that this happens in this day and age.

Ensaf Haidar, now a refugee living in Quebec, joined an all-party coalition of MPs on Parliament Hill on Thursday urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to intervene personally with the Saudis.

They want the prime minister to push for the release of Badawi, who is set to receive 50 more lashes Friday.

It is part of Badawi’s ongoing punishment of 1,000 lashes, a 10-year prison sentence and heavy fines for criticizing Saudi clerics on a blog he founded.
The 32-year-old father of three was lashed 50 times on Jan. 9, but his second scheduled beating was postponed last week for medical reasons.
“Raif’s health condition is getting worse and worse,” Haidar said through a translator during a news conference on Parliament Hill.

She said that was the conclusion of several doctors who examined her husband in the last week.

“I am very concerned about him. It is impossible for a human being to be able to withstand 50 lashes weekly.”

Only days before the murderous assault on Charlie Hébdo staff in Paris by heavily armed men claiming allegiance to Al Qaeda, Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused to support the global Arms Trade Treaty, which came into force on Christmas Eve, 90 days after the 50th nation ratified it.

While doing so, Harper also facilitated more Canadian arms sales this past year than previous governments have ever sanctioned – a $14.8 billion contract over 10 years to sell Light Armored Vehicles (LAV III) made in Ontario. They are being assembled at a branch plant of US-based General Dynamics, the sixth largest arms manufacturer in the world, with sales of over $31 billion in 2012.

Canada’s weaponry is being sold to Saudi Arabia, the largest arms buyer in the Middle East. It is also the country that has funded the radicalization of Islam for over 40 years, and is the leading exponent of a rigid form of Islamism which preaches rejection of “infidels”.

Saudi Arabia is the country in the world where women cannot drive and where days ago a reporter who dared question the strict laws of the country was publicly flogged, fined (over $250,000) and imprisoned for 10 years.

Not only is Canada selling to the leading Islamist state, it is also selling to Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and even to Iraq, all countries with questionable human rights records. Canada is indiscriminately distributing arms right into the centre of the Middle East, arms which can easily end up in the hands of violent extremists.

And there's an expectations that somehow, the oppressed people of these countries should denounce the violence we profit from as a nation? Absurd.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Igottago

The biggest source of extremist ideology is Saudi Arabia, not to mention funding for terrorist groups...

Iran is no better. The huge and horrible part of the problem is that these regimes are cynically using terrorist networks as their tools to achieve various economic objectives.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Iran is no better. The huge and horrible part of the problem is that these regimes are cynically using terrorist networks as their tools to achieve various economic objectives.

How did Iran get to be so radical?

[WCW Nitro]

I think in the West, a new approach is needed. The extremist leaders in the West are all on government support and have no problem taking money from the very governments they supposedly hate. I think this fact should be mentioned more often to destroy the image of them as some sort of warriors. By just calling them violent and evil, it just reinforces them as outsiders and I don't think it makes a dent in their appeal to some other Muslims.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

How did Iran get to be so radical?

If this was a rhetorical question leading to "it's all US fault, because of the Shah Bakhtiar's puppet regime", then you probably are going to tell us that it was, right?

If not, then I blame the religion for Iran's radicalization or, rather, the application of religion to subdue the masses. Most of Iran's intellectual elite that had a chance to emigrate were strongly, publicly and vocally condemning the Revolution and its ideas.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by polak

We agree 100%. If you read my other posts they are specifically targeting those that are complacent with their peers subscribing to the more violent aspects of the religion. That I'm not okay with. Where we might differ is if whether or not you think that people have a responsibility to actively distance themselves from the problem. At what point is it up to the individual to say I no longer want to associate myself with that group. Practice your interpretation of the doctrine, without identifying as a muslim, for example (I know its an extreme example and not really needed for Canadians, but lets say if that 60% number for Pakistani’s that are okay with violence in the name of islam is true, then I think it is necessary)

I'm not saying I'm taking matters into my own hands. I'm just saying that's where I think the "us vs. them" mentality is coming from. The lack of change or initiative to incite reform.

I think this is an interesting line of thinking. Sadly, it's often espoused by people in times when they can point the finger at other "groups." In other words, it's easy to toss this expectation at Muslims because you're not part of that group, and you feel it emotionally and intellectually safe to call them to carpet.

This type of irrelevant accusation is also often tossed at Americans traveling in Europe. I've seen it first hand with friends: "Hey, your president is an idiot and your vice president advocates torture. How backwards and immoral a group you guys are... and why haven't we seen each and every one of you denounce torture?" According to your framework, you're going to need to be not "complacent" and assure that each and every American you come into contact with actively denounces association with that "group."

It's easy to toss grenades from an epistemically enclosed shelter.