Georgina wrote:He said, paraphrasing...

"Canadians are upset to see soldiers carrying automatic weapons in the street. This is something one would expect south of the border"

No mention of why it is necessary and prudent (well, an off-hand remark about how there could be additional gunman at large). Even though I don't even like the RCMP, they didn't start this.

Yet when some people set off bombs in Boston and the same response was had... that's exactly how people responded to it as well.

Maybe we shouldnt let people from muslim nations in so much and collect welfare...so on and so on.

I mean that's just me but is my statement too full of racism? apparently too some Im a KKK memember.

Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. Well that is a pure bread all Canadian name if you ask me!

Yes... it is racist. Here's the stick to measure that with:
Is it identifying an ethnic group?
Is it describing a behaviour or trait based on that ethnic group to all members of the group, derived from the actions/traits of individual members of that group?


An example of this would be:
"All white Americans drink Bush Beer and have sex with their own cousins while living in trailer parks." based solely only on perception of white backwater rednecks.

BBC, 8 hours ago from article on multiple events...

"The assailant's social media postings show he was clearly inspired by Islamic State (IS) propaganda."

Not the Koran?

Any religion advocating and acting on the the sword so much is organized crime.

OrangeDragon wrote:Yes... it is racist. Here's the stick to measure that with:
Is it identifying an ethnic group?
Is it describing a behaviour or trait based on that ethnic group to all members of the group, derived from the actions/traits of individual members of that group?


An example of this would be:
"All white Americans drink Bush Beer and have sex with their own cousins while living in trailer parks." based solely only on perception of white backwater rednecks.

My take is different...

Clearly a huge amount of law enforcement resources could be saved by profiling instead of random or universal checks. Except for their political-military leaders, aren't all these criminals all...

1. under 35
2. Muslim
3. male

No need for ATA to search 80 year old women wearing crucifixes or Buddhist amulets. It's illogical and wasteful. Security not political correctness. Are all young Muslim males taking up jihad? Obviously not, but I for one am not willing to search priests and little girls for appearances sake.

OrangeDragon wrote:Yes... it is racist. Here's the stick to measure that with:
Is it identifying an ethnic group?
Is it describing a behaviour or trait based on that ethnic group to all members of the group, derived from the actions/traits of individual members of that group?


An example of this would be:
"All white Americans drink Bush Beer and have sex with their own cousins while living in trailer parks." based solely only on perception of white backwater rednecks.

That seems a deliberately simplistic stance to me. If three shooters (bombers, whatever) are all Elbonian, it is appropriate to say "the Elbonian shooters" - that is not racist, it is simply the facts of the matter. To say that all Elbonians are shooters is not appropriate. If only or mainly Elbonians engage in terrorist or hate related activity such as jihad, it is not wrong to say so - however politically correct it might be claimed to be.

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Yes... it is racist. Here's the stick to measure that with:
Is it identifying an ethnic group?
Is it describing a behaviour or trait based on that ethnic group to all members of the group, derived from the actions/traits of individual members of that group?


An example of this would be:
"All white Americans drink Bush Beer and have sex with their own cousins while living in trailer parks." based solely only on perception of white backwater rednecks.

That seems a deliberately simplistic stance to me. If three shooters (bombers, whatever) are all Elbonian, it is appropriate to say "the Elbonian shooters" - that is not racist, it is simply the facts of the matter. To say that all Elbonians are shooters is not appropriate. If only or mainly Elbonians engage in terrorist or hate related activity such as jihad, it is not wrong to say so - however politically correct it might be claimed to be.

You have a logical fallacy implied in your argument in the last sentence... and we agree up until that point.
You just implied: Apples are fruit. All of these apples are fruit. All fruits are apples.

Saying all/most jihadists are Purple People Eaters doesn't make all Purple People Eaters jihadists. Presuming such, and/or presuming to punish all of the group for the actions of those who are, is racist.

To go one further... all jihadists are muslim doesn't mean all muslims are jihadists (as i've covered) but it also doesn't mean all people from the countries in question are even muslims. Or that muslims only come from a limited set of countries/belong to specific ethnic groups/have specific skin color or specific styles of last names.

With the power of the internet completely domestic WASPs with last names like Jones could be potentially converted muslims and jihadists...

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Yes... it is racist. Here's the stick to measure that with:
Is it identifying an ethnic group?
Is it describing a behaviour or trait based on that ethnic group to all members of the group, derived from the actions/traits of individual members of that group?


An example of this would be:
"All white Americans drink Bush Beer and have sex with their own cousins while living in trailer parks." based solely only on perception of white backwater rednecks.

That seems a deliberately simplistic stance to me. If three shooters (bombers, whatever) are all Elbonian, it is appropriate to say "the Elbonian shooters" - that is not racist, it is simply the facts of the matter. To say that all Elbonians are shooters is not appropriate. If only or mainly Elbonians engage in terrorist or hate related activity such as jihad, it is not wrong to say so - however politically correct it might be claimed to be.

You have a logical fallacy implied in your argument in the last sentence... and we agree up until that point.
You just implied: Apples are fruit. All of these apples are fruit. All fruits are apples.

Saying all/most jihadists are Purple People Eaters doesn't make all Purple People Eaters jihadists. Presuming such, and/or presuming to punish all of the group for the actions of those who are, is racist.

To go one further... all jihadists are muslim doesn't mean all muslims are jihadists (as i've covered) but it also doesn't mean all people from the countries in question are even muslims. Or that muslims only come from a limited set of countries/belong to specific ethnic groups/have specific skin color or specific styles of last names.

With the power of the internet completely domestic WASPs with last names like Jones could be potentially converted muslims and jihadists...

What about saying that many Europeans are rude and ignorant, because they don't know that Las Vegas staff get paid less than the wrongly named, minimum wage? And should someone who says that, be lecturing others on political correctness?
Have you lived next to or amongst a muslim area, or lived near a terrorist attack?

People weren't referring to jihadists. You made that up in a typical pc spin move. They may be questioning muslim immigration on a whole range of issues, including the paedophile gang rape gangs that have thousands of young UK victims, and viewing immigration as a whole. Multiculturism has failed. It's a fact.

Nick Hart (sp?) of BBC on TV. news just said (paraphrasing) "The police will now be investigating whether that was a possible motive," after mentioning Canadian government's recent decision to join the "US-led coalition" against ISIL.

Huh? Was the reason a rapist attacked a woman because she was wearing a short skirt? Talk about blaming the victim.

BBC. continues to refer to 'growing extremism' in Canada without naming the elephant in the room - Islam.

BTW, when I taught medieval and renaissance history in Cambodia I did many hours of research on the invasion of what is now India.The students (mostly Khmer and Buddhist) were not aware of Nalanda. Look it up. Jihad is not a new thing. Hint: 'Hindu Kush' in what is now Pakistan means 'funeral pyre of the Hindus' and not because of the excesses of Brahminism of which there are many. Have the Jains, Buddhists, Christians etc been guilty of atrocities. Absolutely. But I find comparing the scale and history enlightening. State Leninism-Stalinism and Islam are the winners of mass murder.

Perhaps someone will bring up the crusades...



Most interesting to me is around 29:16 when the speaker makes a comparison between crusades and jihad. There are several significant differences.

UKJ wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Yes... it is racist. Here's the stick to measure that with:
Is it identifying an ethnic group?
Is it describing a behaviour or trait based on that ethnic group to all members of the group, derived from the actions/traits of individual members of that group?


An example of this would be:
"All white Americans drink Bush Beer and have sex with their own cousins while living in trailer parks." based solely only on perception of white backwater rednecks.

That seems a deliberately simplistic stance to me. If three shooters (bombers, whatever) are all Elbonian, it is appropriate to say "the Elbonian shooters" - that is not racist, it is simply the facts of the matter. To say that all Elbonians are shooters is not appropriate. If only or mainly Elbonians engage in terrorist or hate related activity such as jihad, it is not wrong to say so - however politically correct it might be claimed to be.

You have a logical fallacy implied in your argument in the last sentence... and we agree up until that point.
You just implied: Apples are fruit. All of these apples are fruit. All fruits are apples.

Saying all/most jihadists are Purple People Eaters doesn't make all Purple People Eaters jihadists. Presuming such, and/or presuming to punish all of the group for the actions of those who are, is racist.

To go one further... all jihadists are muslim doesn't mean all muslims are jihadists (as i've covered) but it also doesn't mean all people from the countries in question are even muslims. Or that muslims only come from a limited set of countries/belong to specific ethnic groups/have specific skin color or specific styles of last names.

With the power of the internet completely domestic WASPs with last names like Jones could be potentially converted muslims and jihadists...

What about saying that many Europeans are rude and ignorant, because they don't know that Las Vegas staff get paid less than the wrongly named, minimum wage? And should someone who says that, be lecturing others on political correctness?
Have you lived next to or amongst a muslim area, or lived near a terrorist attack?

People weren't referring to jihadists. You made that up in a typical pc spin move. They may be questioning muslim immigration on a whole range of issues, including the paedophile gang rape gangs that have thousands of young UK victims, and viewing immigration as a whole. Multiculturism has failed. It's a fact.

Part A: Nice spin. What I've said is that to many in the service industry Europeans are perceived as such for said reasons. Is that a generalization by the servers? Yes.

Part B: If you reread the stroppy post, in the last sentence, you'll see how foolish you just appeared. Since he was specifically referring to jihadists... in the one sentence my whole post was about. Though saying that all muslims are rapists, pedophiles, etc is no better.

Remember when the American south they said all Blacks were violent animals out to rape the white women?