Jasser Vs. Ellison (Part 8 of 9)- AIFD Congressional Briefing on the Hill- October 1, 2009

[Wouldman2]

As for Shariah, Dr.Sheema Khan from CAIR-Canada crusaded for it in Ontario and then canada until the Honour Killings were exposed. She now has the nerve to go on a TVO youtube video and pawn off her new book as if she had no ties to CAIR-Can in her past. She was also "Shocked" "Shocked I tell you" about the Toronto-18 jihadist that almost slaughtered civilians on canadian soil. CAIR and Nihad Awad are on record defended Maher Arar's $400'000'000.00 Lawfare lawsuit for what JORDAN did to him.

[lashkaretoiba]

You two aren't fooling anyone. Islam has been exposed and the truth is killing it.

[Slickback83]

You mean political islam...

[PuffDaddy786]

zhudi jassar is a useful idiot with zero crediblity. he is in bed with the republican idiots who say obama was born in kenya.

[faro0485]

Who's the secularist claiming he's a muslim? How the hell did he get there without any support from muslims, getting a position without democratic processes... another despot trying to rule over the muslims?

Oh wait, he's been exposed already:  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser Exposed: an Overdue Reality Check Written by: Mohamed Tammam

[annata12]

@faro0485 You confuse tyranny of the majority with democracy. Someone who is for Universal Human Rights is more of a democrat than someone who is elected by 90% of the people and who wants to impose his views of human nature on those who didn't vote for him, like unbelievers and homosexuals.

[faro0485]

@annata12 Well when you say "universal human rights", of course rejecting God given rights, and thus claiming the majority would be an oppressive force... that's kinda like the same line by extremists who want to force their way of thinking and rule upon the majority. I don't consider that to be a diplomatic approach. In fact, I consider that to be an approach of division and strengthening those in that majority who one is criticising. Kinda like when the Zionists helped the Nazi finances.

[annata12]

@faro0485 No it's not! Universal Human Rights give equal rights to all human beings, no matter their religion, creed or biology as long as they don't violate the rights of others. Those are not equal. If i tolerate your behavior that does not affect me, but you don't allow me to do what i like, even though it doesn't affect you also, one of us is the oppressor and the other is not! Are you saying we oppressed slave traders by taking their right to slaves away? Quit joking.

[faro0485]

@annata12 When you say universal, it's not quite the same thing as God given. There are those people who say that the universe is infinite, where as others say the God is infinite. There's also the claim that these God given rights have been plagiarized by those who want to espouse the Universe model. Of course to say when xyz doesn't effect another, is as good as saying "because I have no knowledge (or care not to know) of any wrong, it's good, and anyone who disagrees is bad"

[annata12]

@faro0485 religious laws are based on the assumption that this is what god wants, it's not verfyable and even among the same religion their is division, how can you follow such rules if their only benefit is getting into heaven, with no effect in the real world, other than to oppress certain kinds of people? Not allowing someone to oppress someone is not oppression. Not allowing a religion to kill homosexuals and stone adulterers is not infringing on freedom of religion.

[faro0485]

@annata12 Did you just imply that invented and plagiarized and doctored UHRs are not based upon any assumptions? And did you just insist on making false attribution upon religion? Seriously, how did anyone invent UHRs? Great individuals? I take it that you support population reduction to get rid of the tyrannical element of democracy and let the great individuals rule supreme, or am I wrong?

[annata12]

@faro0485 The UDHR is based on reason, it only legislates the freedoms of human and restrictions humans have to infringe upon those freedoms. All humans have the same exact freedoms,which is why they are Universal. Not different rules for women, homosexuals, unbelievers, etc. That's the difference

Same rules for all people, believers and unbelievers and it doesn't assume how humans have to be according to a archaic believes that, but informs it's views based on reason and science

[faro0485]

@annata12 Reasoning: "there are too many humans on the planet", solution: "depopulate". /watch?v=YBPq0fHY86Q

Ah the science of Eugenics. So that's what you're promoting? What a terrible UDHR. And this is beyond the strawman you put upon the God's law.

[annata12]

@faro0485 You are an idiot. If all people had only 2 children instead of 5-7 there would be no problem and no one would have to suffer. It's not to much to ask to only get as many children as you can properly care for, feed and educate so that they have future in a world where knowledge grows exponentially. You don't need eugenics, just a reasonable family planning policy.

But reason is not your forte i've already guessed as much!

[faro0485]

@annata12 So... you're for vaccines and family planning?

[annata12]

@faro0485 vaccines against sicknesses, and family planning. Of course i am.

[faro0485]

@annata12 Have you seen these: /watch?v=zLnNi_qb7nY /watch?v=q9UKec6durQ

[annata12]

@faro0485 No i haven't, those a vile racist comments which i do not subscribe to! I'm for family planing of all human, every nation that has more than 2 children per women, increases the burden on all of humanity. If we wanna catch up and bring all of humanity on an equal level we cant have such run away birthrates. If you don't agree, i would like to see your solution. There is no infinite growth on a finite planet even if we spread the wealth equally.