May 2008
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

The Shotgun Blog

« Kerry to the rescue | Main | Order of Canada disgrace »

Monday, July 24, 2006

Wrong

One of the most unpleasant effects of political correctness is that it allows bigots to claim martyrdom. Because more people get called racists than deserve it, people like RightGirl can publish statements of rank, pure-as-the-driven snow bigotry and claim they're simply manning the barricades against the barbarian hordes.

For RightGirl, and for many people who frequent this blog, the hordes are Muslim. Because some Somalians put a jihad on Ethiopia, Canadians should be denied freedom of religion — that's what RightGirl argued on Saturday. Prominent Canadians who should be forced to renounce their beliefs include MP for Edmonton-Strathcona Rahim Jaffer, activist Irshad Manji (author of The Trouble with Islam), Zahra Kazemi's son Stephan Hachemi, Sun Media columnist and Canadian Coalition for Democracies Senior Fellow Salim Mansur, and hundreds of thousands of other peaceful folk with whom people like RightGirl interact every day without incident.

There can be no nobility or bravery in bigotry, particularly when it's anonymous. RightGirl could preach her beliefs in the middle of downtown Toronto and no harm would come to her, but that wouldn't do much for her "they want to kill us all because we're not Muslims" theory. She'd just be left there, barking at the moon like a lunatic, desperately hoping that a Canadian suicide bomber might some day validate her delusions — much as she does now.

A post suggesting that Islam be outlawed shouldn't be a chance to debate the merits of different religions, or to discuss what passages in some ancient book condone or condemn violence. It should be a chance to say that Canada doesn't ban religions and never will, and to point out how hopelessly repressive and needless and stupid it is even to suggest such a thing.

Posted by Chris Selley on July 24, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/5507254

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wrong:

» True Hate from azerbic - Antonia Zerbisias - Toronto Star Blog
This post has been updated: You know, this blog is often accused by righties (and one capital-Liberal blogger who sits on the board of the Canada Israel Committee) for being a haven for ''anti-Israel'' wingnuts. I personally have been denounced [Read More]

Tracked on 24-Jul-06 11:51:21 PM

» That's Me in the Corner, Owning my Religion from Bow. James Bow.
The reliably nutty Western Standard has been in a furor these past few days, possibly in response to the revelation that there are 50,000 Lebanese Canadians in need of evacuation this past week, but also in feedback from the arrested... [Read More]

Tracked on 26-Jul-06 6:51:20 AM

» Insurance for contractors from Insurance for contractors
Atlantis casino nassau Insurance guarantee association Hartford casualty insurance company Station c... [Read More]

Tracked on 6-Aug-06 9:35:02 PM

Comments

Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia represent Islam: They ban the bible and everything that's non-Muslim.

Till when will we remain dhimmis and naive?
Will it take a civil war?
Let's give them the Jihad they want before there's too many of them.

Posted by: fw | 24-Jul-06 10:01:22 PM

Or, on the other hand, you could take RightGirl's comments in the context of her other comments, and read into her statement the inferences she's elsewhere stated quite well. For instance, RightGirl's position, if I recall correctly, has been that Islam is dangerous because the claims that "mainstream Islam is peaceful" are incorrect. The problems she accuses Islam of are not representative of fringe groups but the whole. If we assume this to be true, which we may readily do given the popular reactions in Islamic territories to terrorism, then she is not advocating destruction of freedom of religion. On the contrary, she is seeking to defend freedom of religion; if Islam, as she has elsewhere, if I recall correctly, declared, and reports from Islamic territories seem to bear out, represses other religions, then standing against Islam is standing for religious freedom. The same argument can be applied to Islam's political, social, and physical violence or appreciation of violence. If Islam stands against freedom, the reaction of standing against it in defense of freedom is not bigotry or an attack.

One of the most unpleasant effects of political correctness is that it allows soft-headed people to accuse any firm stand of bigotry, excusing them for taking statements out of context.

Posted by: Tozetre | 24-Jul-06 10:02:17 PM

iSLAM was not created by a peaceful person, for peaceful purposes, so to suggest it is thus a "religion" of peace belies historical fact.

Posted by: wharold | 24-Jul-06 10:29:35 PM

Tozetre expressed it perfectly. Islam is not a religion. It is a murderously intolerant cult that is bent on world domination. It is well-documented that it intends to achieve this goal by murdering all who will not convert and submit to it.

So Chris, how many times do these people have to tell you that they want to slit your throat before you realize that they are not joking? Read the koran.

Posted by: John | 24-Jul-06 10:33:33 PM

Bigotry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own. The origin of the word in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of religious hypocrite, especially a woman.

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to his or her prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false. Forms of bigotry may have a related ideology or world views. end definition

Mohammad was a bigot. He built an entire blood drenched self serving political ideology around his Arab desert-centered narrow existence and created a religious justification for it.

As it's ONLY 'prophet' Mohammed bound others to his strictures but was NOT bound by them himself.

Everyone who follows in Mohammed's footsteps, says there is NO god but allah and Mohammed is his ONLY prophet is a bigot, just like Mohammed was.

We of western civilization win converts to our way by offering aspects of a better life and conversion through reason and argument.

The followers of Mohammed convert by coercion and the sword. History is my witness.

Intolerant? Muslims, with the sanction of their holy writ, have dynamited the Bamiyan Buddhas, dynamite 1400 year old churches in Macedonia and other parts of eastern Europe, wipe out the existence of Christian and Jewish graveyards and build on top of them in countries they have over run, and murdered and enslaved 100s of millions of Jews, Christians, Hindus, and others not of their ideology.

I am for freedom of worship.
Islam is not a religion, it is a political ideology with religious justification.

I will never convert nor be enslaved.

Posted by: Speller | 24-Jul-06 10:42:54 PM

Tozetre: I am grateful for your tone of civility, uncommon around here, but I have to disagree with you. RightGirl was pretty darn clear:

"At what point is a death cult afforded the status of legitimate religion, and why? What makes Mohammed any better than Jim Jones?

Islam must be labelled for what it truly represents: wholesale slaughter and a corrupt ideology of sex and death. It must be stopped."

So Chris's post is 100% dead on (pun intended). What of the hundreds and hundreds of millions who haven't killed?

How many Canadians have died in the last 100 years at the hands of violent people and how many of those violent people were Canadian Muslims? In fact, I'll go even further: how many have died violent deaths in the last hundred years in this entire continent of the Americas, and how many/what percentage were from homegrown terrorists?

19 terrorists did indeed come easily through US customs and abhorrently murder thousands, but if rape and murder are so much at the core of Islam, how come no one here has been practicing it???? If that is a death cult, how come so few deaths by the millions upon millions of Muslims living in North America?

Ted

Posted by: Ted | 24-Jul-06 10:54:54 PM

Chris, your whining ways aside, no one should be suggesting that all muslims are bad...we are suggesting that Islam proper is evil to its rotten core....again, you are projecting or purposely twisting something into what it is not.....just like the leftist loons on the original thread.....

When you have a billion muslims, you will have diversity....secular and liberal minded muslims are not the issue....

You point out people like Rahim Jaffer and Irshad Manji but BOTH of them are considered rank heretics in Orthodox (Sunni) Islam because they stem from ishmailism......

You see Chris, a good muslim from our pov is a bad muslim from the pov of Orthodox Islam.....that is why literal Islam is evil and has to be destroyed.....

All you need to know about Islam is this....it KILLS those that dare to leave it....

If that isn't a murderous cult to you, then you are essentially braindead when it comes to Islam and you can join Shane and others in defending this depraved ideology that deserves to join the ashbin of history along with its cousins Nazism and Marxism.....

Posted by: Albertanator | 24-Jul-06 11:04:31 PM

Red Ted, no one here pratices it?

Ever hear of the Kadhr family?

Ever hear of the Muslim, Ahmed Ressam, who left Canada in 2001 to blow up LAX and was caught in the U.S.?

Ever hear about the one who was busted in Ontario because he was part of the conspiracy that blew up the London Tubes last year?

Ever hear of the one who planned to fly a plane into the Pickering Nuclear Reactor in Ontario?

Ever hear about the 17 caught this month in Ontario with TONNES of explosive materials?

Ever hear of the ones from Ontario this month caught planning to blow up the Holland Tunnel in NY?

Posted by: Speller | 24-Jul-06 11:06:28 PM

Speller: Ever hear about answering a question.

Of course I have heard of all of those. How many of them, indeed how many of the millions and millions of Muslims living in Canada and the US have killed?

If Islam is fundamentally a death cult as you conservatives keep claiming, then surely one out of the millions and millions would have managed to, I don't know, stick a knife in someone at least just to see if it gets him a coupla virgins in heaven. Surely at least one.

Or are you saying that the Liberal and Democrat security forces have been so superior that they've managed to catch them all even though Muslims far out number the CIA, FBI, CSIS and the RCMP combined?

Ted

Posted by: Ted | 24-Jul-06 11:12:37 PM

Red Ted,

So they were caught before they could carry out the imperative of Jihad explicitly stated in their religion and therefore don't count?

Do we get to tar and feather you when some of them succeed?

Jihad is the 6th pillar of Islam, it is required of ALL Muslims.

Posted by: Speller | 24-Jul-06 11:17:25 PM

Ted wrote: "If Islam is fundamentally a death cult as you conservatives keep claiming, then surely one out of the millions and millions would have managed to, I don't know, stick a knife in someone at least just to see if it gets him a coupla virgins in heaven. Surely at least one."

They're called "Moderate" Muslims. They're only Muslim by NAME. They can't leave Islam because the punishment for apostasy is DEATH. Besides, they know it's illegal and they will be caught.

Posted by: Canadian | 24-Jul-06 11:21:52 PM

Oh, and Red Ted,

I'm sure more than one Muslim in Canada has on individual occasions stabbed, shot, and/or raped non-Muslims in Canada. In fact a Muslim serial rapist was deported from Calgary just this month.

It took ELEVEN YEARS to get him deported.

We only found out who he was this month.

Unless it can't be concealed, we are never told about it by the MSM. The same MSM who IGNORED coverage of the CAR-B-QUES in France last year for 14 days.

Posted by: Speller | 24-Jul-06 11:34:11 PM

Ted:

You have much to learn ... about 1400 years of history.

Bluster can never trump ignorance and you're not fooling anybody about just how little you understand about the death cult's true nature.

To call it a religion is a misnomer ... unless you consider the proxy warriors of satan a religion.

Orwell had it right. Ignorance is bliss.

Posted by: Set you free | 24-Jul-06 11:34:59 PM

After studying the Doctrines of Islam as stated in its various tracts (Koran, Hadith, etc) and its military and cultural history, I arrived at the conclusion, as have others, that Islam is not a religion but, rather, a social/political dogma and I therefore contend that steps should be taken, from the 'grass roots' of public opinion on up to legislatures in various democracies, to reclassify Islam as such in order to bring it under greater scrutiny, control and, ultimately, proscription since its ultimate goal, as stated in its Koran, is world dominance through murder, subjugation or forced conversion to its dogma, and this renders it unacceptable to peace, freedom and human betterment. Obviously, such an attempt at proscription will only succeed if the general public is informed of and made aware of its true doctrines, as opposed to the present msm attempt to gloss over or even ignore the true doctrines. I will not restate those doctrines of Islam here but I request "Ted" to visit the following websites www.islamundressed.com www.jihadwatch.com and www.gatesofvienna.blogspot.com The first named is the most scholarly and gives full translations by both Moslem and Western non-Moslem scholars of the Koranic doctrines. We have a duty to educate ourselves and to let others know where they, too, can read the truth. Then, we really must press for Islam's reclassification and eventual proscription, at least in Western countries. Instead of using this topic to disabuse one poster of his ignorance, we should open the debate fully and state what practical steps we all think can be taken to achieve this goal which will benefit all, including those presently under slavery to this ideology. We should also spread the word amongst friends and associates in order to force an open, fully public debate on this plan.

Posted by: Centurion | 24-Jul-06 11:59:53 PM

Posted by: Centurion | 25-Jul-06 12:02:08 AM

Islam must be a fascist political cult - because if it was a religion, leftists would hate it and everything it stood for - since it's a fascist political cult, the left has great admiration for it because leftists yearn for the kind of power over people that fascist dictators enjoy.

Posted by: philanthropist | 25-Jul-06 1:18:30 AM

"...Canada doesn't ban religions and never will..."

Really? Try starting your own religion devoted to the sacred practice of kidnapping politicians and giving them silly haircuts; see how long you last.

The fact is that Canada has limits on its freedom of religion. We allow (somewhat)free practice of any religion that can make some kind of a claim to being a LEGITIMATE belief system. RG makes the argument that Islam no longer qualifies.

I don't agreee with RG that we should ban Islam but I am glad she said it. It is important that self-proclaimed moderates spend some time visualising what it will look like if western nations loose their patience for degenerate behavior.

Posted by: Pete E | 25-Jul-06 2:33:15 AM

Ted;

So Chris's post is 100% dead on (pun intended). What of the hundreds and hundreds of millions who haven't killed?

I point you to Germany in WWII. There were plenty of Germans who didn't actively kill Jews, but they still felt guilty. Only a tiny portion of Germans acted in Einsatzgruppen, yes? Only a few stoked the fires or turned the gas knobs, yes? And yet, all of Germany was suffused with guilt. Why? Because they voted for Hitler, cheered for the Nazis, or did not try to stop a movement which ruled them. In a very similar way, Muslims who do not kill but merely cheer, who do not kill but merely vote for Hamas, who do not kill but merely stand aside and allow madmen to rule, share a significant culpability for the actions of those they do not stop. As has been pointed out, by RightGirl among others, the "moderate" Muslims, who you claim to vastly outnumber the "fanatical" Muslims, have certainly not stopped them; either their numbers and thereby their influence lacks, or their will does. If their numbers lack, then they are not as populous as you claim, and represent a minority. If their will lacks, then they are not moderate or peaceful but passive, and if passive then willing to let innocents die rather than risking themselves.

So, of the "hundreds of millions" who merely watched while their governments sent killers to destroy innocent families, who merely voted for Hamas "to reduce corruption" (oh, that familiar line; let us elect a madman, if only he balances our books!), who merely cheered at the funerals of "martyrs," I have an opinion just as low as those who get their hands bloody.

Posted by: Tozetre | 25-Jul-06 6:22:27 AM

There's a horrific picture at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ of a small boy having his arm run over as punishment for stealing bread. I don't know if this picture is faked or not -- I seem to recall a similar one having been photoshopped or otherwise staged -- but it sure looks real to me.

Authentic or not, only a fool -- or a person who was justifiably frightened of reprisal -- would deny that sharia is a barbaric, brutal code of law.

It's true that that sort of thing doesn't happen here. Not because of any particular self-restraint on the part of hardcore Islam, but because of existing Canadian law, which the 17 and God knows how many more would give their lives to subvert.

Chris, you know perfectly well that Islam is not a peaceful religion. Certainly, most Muslims would not burn an embassy or murder indiscriminately in response to cartoons they didn't like; but there sure are a hell of a lot of them who rallied in support of those who would, carrying signs reading "Slay those who insult Islam" and "Behead those who insult Islam".

The ONLY reason there have not yet been horrific terrorist attacks in Canada is because of scrutiny and surveillance of Muslims. They may hate it, but my safety is more important than their hurt feelings.

Posted by: Mambo Bananapatch | 25-Jul-06 6:38:05 AM

Tozetre:

Interesting comparison but it doesn't work. We haven't got anyone calling for the banning of all German or calling for them to all be killed. Intelligent people recognize that while many Germans, if you want to think of them as a "race" or being German as a "philosphy" or "religion", did horrific deeds and many more let them do it, our social values based upon law, civic duty and human rights reached out, didn't demonize and today you have a very productive, peaceful country and citizens.

I wonder what would have happened in Central Europe if instead we said they are inherently evil to the core and "must be stopped" and "eliminated".

Fortunately, we are better than that and recognize the inherent worth of human beings and that not every person inherits the extremism of some of their brothers and sisters. Well, some of us are better than that at any rate.

So again I ask: you guys are the ones saying that Islam is fundamentally, to the core a death cult. How come no Canadian born or American born Muslim has gone on a killing spree or suicide bombing? How come there aren't mass marches calling for the deaths of all infidels?

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, there is something else at play over there among some Muslims extremists?

Calling for the banning of an entire religion has never been done in Canada and never should be. Who would be next?

Posted by: Ted | 25-Jul-06 7:44:08 AM

Wonderful comments, Tozetre and Centurion.

I hope Mr. Selley starts reading and learn something from his crappy post.

I strongly invite people to start a serious organization to eventually ban the evil ideology, Islam, and rid Canada of the Islamofacists.

I would suggest as a first step the organization of a public debate. Recently, I could read good information about the links between Nazis and Muslim countries before, during and after WWII. They are both haters of Jews and trying to achieve another holocaust.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 25-Jul-06 7:44:14 AM

(BTW, I love the circularity of the argument that the peaceful Muslims, the integrated Muslims, the Muslim critics must must, because of that, somehow be defined as not violent because the Qu'ran advocates violence.

It's also a twisted hypocrisy. The Bible is equally violent passages and calls on the killing of non-believers as well. Anyone here want to say that evangelical Stephen Harper isn't Christian because he doesn't kill the non-believers as called for in the Bible?

Of course not.

Posted by: Ted | 25-Jul-06 7:47:14 AM

Ted, you're wasting your breath here. And don't remove your spacesuit, because the atmosphere here is toxic. The Western Standard appears to be populated entirely by silicon-based lifeforms. There's no reasoning with these xeno-creatures. They should simply be pulverized into sand. Or turned into something useful, like glass. Or rounded up and kicked off the planet. Or banned. Or something.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 25-Jul-06 8:06:01 AM

Chris, welcome back to the blog. I notice you haven't posted much lately, and I'm pleased that I could get to you enough to make you post.

I stand by what I say. I am not preaching internment of anyone with a Muslim name. I am just stating the fact that the religion of Islam is a danger, and that if it were banned/outlawed/pooh-poohed/whatever, it might give the "moderates" (who by Islamic standards are not really Muslim at all) the chance to get away from the cult and find faith in a peaceful manner. The kids I grew up with, the man I was engaged to, the roommate I had, and the woman who sits next to me - none of these people (with the exception of the ex, but that might just be bitterness) are a threat. But none of them are hard-core faithful, either. They are the Muslim version of Christmas and Easter Christians. They celebrate Ramadan and Eid, avoid pork, and bury their parents before sundown. They do not prosetylize. They marry outside their culture. One is even gay (though he is becoming more radicalized, and I have cut ties to him). They drink, smoke and are generally Canadians, even though half of them weren't born here. Islam doesn't define them. It is simply a part of who they are - a smaller part. Not one of them has mentioned virgins or Allah or death to Israel. They're too busy working, raising kids, dating or marrying.

Do I want these people deported or interned or imprisoned? No. But do I want to have the mosques turned inside out and upside down, and shaken until all the skeletons come out and then decide if it is worthwhile to still consider this anything more than a cult? Yes.

Posted by: RightGirl | 25-Jul-06 8:15:39 AM

Hey look! It's a troll by Dr Dawg! How's your extraordinarily extended thesis going over at your blog? You know, the "I'm not antisemitic BUT..." one? The world awaits your "BUT" - from the lefty blogger who talks out of his butt to support his Islamic political allies who hate Americans and Jews too.

Tell us more about how you fled from the UK to Canada to escape the devil Thatcher.

Posted by: anon | 25-Jul-06 8:44:41 AM

Dr.Dawg,

There's a certain irony in your comment.

You state that the atmosphere here is "toxic" because you disagree with the posters who have said that the ideology of Islam should be banned. Fair enough.

But then you state that those who disagree with you should be killed and turned into sand. And that makes you better than those you rail against how?

Funny how people who demand tolerance show so little of it. Are you aware of your hypocrisy or do you just figure yourself right so the normal rules of logical consistency don't apply to you?

Posted by: Warwick | 25-Jul-06 8:45:44 AM

The discussion between CS and RG is semantics.

The moderate Muslims who I know are as RG describes. Some will even admit that unlike what happens in my church where the nutbars get marginalized; in a mosque the nutbars can work their way into the centre of power. Read Salim Mansur’s columns in the Toronto Sun and get worried. If a Muslim professor is worried about his own religion shouldn’t we be worried too?

I would argue that Moderate Muslims are actually Muslim-atheists.

Also the reason socialists and Islamofascists are partnering is because they are both a social-political structure. They champion the collective over the individual. They are both utopian. Islamofascists are utopians of the past and socialists are utopians of the future. Both are unrealistic and living in a dreamworld. Both are responsible for a lot of destruction. Both will get marginalized because these structures don’t work in a modern, industrial, heavily-populated, globally-connected economy. The only issue is how much suffering has to take place before they become safely marginalized?

Posted by: nomdenet | 25-Jul-06 8:50:53 AM

Jeezus, Warwick, sarcasm and humour are just lost on you ideologues. Next thing you know, someone over here will discover that Jonathan Swift really advocated eating Irish babies. That should get the comboxes humming, and I do mean humming.

Muslims, silicon-based lifeforms--same rhetorical devices. But I guess I'm wasting my breath here too.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 25-Jul-06 8:55:00 AM

RG, just to be clear, marrying outside of Muslim culture is neither moderate nor rare, for MEN.
I bet none of your acquaintances' sisters were permitted to even date.

Muslims are well known for homosexuality, and raping their sisters, they don't have any outlet for casual sex, adulterers are stoned, and it is common in Islamic culture for the mothers to masturbate their baby boys in their cribs, giving them an accelerated sex drive.

In homosexual liaisons Muslim males just view the catcher as homo and pitcher as straight. Mohammad had many homosexuals in his army and his fighters were offered men to rape as well as women. Even temporary marriage is allowed so the men can go with whores.

Smoking is not haram.

As long as there are Korans, non-Muslims will live under a threat from Muslims. The 'moderates' simply provide cover for the hardcore Jihadis. This is their traditional mode of irregular warfare.

When Muslims reach a certain percentage of the population, about 30%, that whole society is claimed for the Ummah..

Posted by: Speller | 25-Jul-06 9:01:10 AM

AND YOUR BREATH SMELLS BAD DAWG

Posted by: Duke | 25-Jul-06 9:02:15 AM

Actually Dawg,

I like to argue with the ideologues on both sides. I argue with the intolerant religious right as much as the dimwit left. I don't care for either.

In this case, I see a threat coming from the extreme form of Islam currently en vogue with their supporters (in the same way that the Habsburg's extreme, bigoted Catholic dogma and their Conquistadores ravaged Europe for a few hundred years.)

I see Islam as a threat to liberal democracy including (more like especially) to the kind of society that the left claims is paramount. Pym Fortune (the gay, socialist lefty who the media claimed was a "right-wing extremist") foresaw this threat to tolerant, liberal society and was demonised and killed by the left for his troubles. Look what's happened since...

I tend to the left on social issues, right on economic issues and hawkish on foreign policy. It puts me at odds with just about everyone at some point. But it hardly makes me a dogmatic partisan... You however are a different story.

Posted by: Warwick | 25-Jul-06 9:08:32 AM

Speller, my aquaintances were "moderates". One's sister married an Italian. My gay friend? A catcher! And casual sex? On boy I could tell you stories...

These people were no different than you or I. But their brethren in the mosques would not really consider them Muslims, either. They believed in God, just not the same one as me. They had faith in their God, and I'm sure that at some points in their lives they must have prayed.

Posted by: RightGirl | 25-Jul-06 9:13:23 AM

I typed a comment on Right Girl's post yesterday then erased it. Like everyone sane I'm frustrated and frightened by a "religious" philosophy which has impossible hate built right into it, along with murderous revenge, literal slavery as heavenly "rewards" (is there somehow any sort of connection between "72 virgins" and the concept of love between a man and a woman?), and numerous horrors which undergird entire societies and nations?

I realize and half-assed "preach" patience and protection of the millions of Muslims who live among us in North America, but this absolute horror CANNOT be toyed with any more.

Extreme "action" in our nations against adherents to Islam CANNOT occur, not now, as we are in the midst of full force attack on this philosophical sewage at its source.

The "nations" of Syria and Iran and Lebanon and Iraq et al, MUST come to heel or face military destruction. If those people cannot purge the murders from their offices of governmental power then we can't pretend that they are just other "members" of the community of nations. They are not. Winston and everyone else who can communicate with folks in those horrible captive nations must let the word out that the time to take control of your nations is now. Or else.

Right Girl shares and communicates what the vast majority of freedom loving people desire for our fellow men to prosper and grow, but not in some murderous "society" of sewage which is the totality of the "religion of peace."

Mulsims in North America need to get it real clear through their heads that the majority Judeo-Christian community cannot sacrifice itself so that you can half-assed support and half-oppose those who are protecting your very lives.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 25-Jul-06 9:13:43 AM

I suspect that many of the muslims that came to North America did so to flee their home countries that had Sharia law. That seems to be their reason for claiming refugee status. We do get a lot of refugees. Perhaps most of those that came to North America are not for Sharia law and are thus more moderate. But how many are non-practicing muslims? How many are simply unwilling to convert due to the threat of death? Beyond the 17 would be bombers, how many more are plotting terrorist acts on North American soil?

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 25-Jul-06 9:30:36 AM

Right Girl -

Immediately after posting all my support for your-our position on this terrible problem, I saw and read your post about the "normal" Muslims who you have encountered.

Part of what you offer as the just like you and me aspect of Muslims who you have met is the most profoundly destructive aspect of our present Western Civilization. The casual sexual relationships and stupid disregard or absent appreciation of a marriage (Sacrament) and the abnormal homosexual "normalized" situations which are all basically pushed onto innocents (i.e children) by a society which doesn't know enough to see what is good and what is bad.

What in hell is the value in a cavalier attitude toward human sexuality, in a context outside of marriage?

Does this make women happy people? To be basically in an "ex" relationship with every man on earth?

Do women uplift human society or do they debase human society if initmacy and love which produces the living products of family, is just made into some sort of sport?

If a woman will not have sex with a man she is not married to, does that harm or limit her? Or does that make the society as a whole, into a safer and finer and more durable place?

Is self control just an unimportant aspect of human culture?

I read so much of the "popular" crap which women somehow do not realize just demeans and absolutely harms not only themselves but also ALL of the men around them.

If women hold themselves up to a naturally high standard of making careful judgements about whom they will associate and what constitutes a life long commitment, IT TEACHES THE MEN, ONCE AGAIN TO LIVE AND ACT HONORABLY.

All of the garbage of Liberalism is based on a sick and perverted "society" of broken families and disregard for the weak (by individuals, rather than by the collective-government).

The women of Canada, even those who post and comment on this "conservative" site, so often betray a just STUPID misunderstanding and failure to appreciate the absolute opportunity that you have to LEAD your nation, merely through respect for yourselves. In my view, the only way that a person can understand and respect themselves is if they understand where they came from (i.e. as a unique immortal spiritual creation by God, and given a temporary human body and an opportunity to do either good or evil).

Old fashioned ideas, eh?

Without these ideas, we have no hope.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 25-Jul-06 9:48:02 AM

Conrad, because I would rather see a Muslim chilling out and not killing his sister for having pre-marital sex, that makes me stupid? Did you misplace your Christian forgiveness on the way to the 14th century this morning? I think I'd rather have Chris call me a racist.

Posted by: RightGirl | 25-Jul-06 9:57:22 AM

Right Girl -

Thanks for acknowledging my post.

I hope you will think about it a little bit more.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 25-Jul-06 10:07:47 AM

OK, so the claim is that Rightgirl has made a statement that cannot be justified with today's current knowledge on human behaviour?

The Selley test is that if Rightgirl were stating the truth, then we would easily look and see the facts to support the case she has put forward.

And the Set You Free test, is that Rightgirl is not talking about Ishmailians, or westernized Muslims, as these folks are not considered Muslims by the Muslims that Rightgirl was making reference to, through her statements.

Thing is, neither position is an actual test, because there is no data in Canada from which to draw a conclusion. To say there is no data, does not mean there is nothing to measure, just that it has not been measured and made public.

In other words, Ishmailians, if I get the term correctly, are considered apostates by jihadists and wahabists. And those folks, the jihadists and wahabists, are the ones who will live to make anyone who is not just like them, die!

Many of you will recall the death calls against the west, include the infidels AND the apostates of America. What they are in fact talking about, when they refer to apostates, are those who they say are not following islam as they believe these people should.

Who made them judge, jury and executioner?

The court system, and the media, as well as the politicians have been plagued with the politically correct, that insists we cannot look at the situation through any lense that might highlight any one single group of people.

This matter was never ever so troubling, as when the community of Toronto has had to deal with the rash of gang killings. When the families of the youth went forward and asked the City to profile the gang youth, in order to prevent murders, the response against the profiling of individuals by the leftists squashed any form of sensibility. The families were people of colour, who were asking the City to permit the police, to do random checks of their youth, in order to save lives. The politically correct rejected the families pleas! As a result, the killing continued.

Tragically, the whole was finally brought into public light, when a girl was hit by a loose bullet. And even then, racial issues were dealt with in the same politically correct manner.

Profiling has become the current day Victorian taboo! Whereas during the Victorian era, you could not discuss sex, or even have the legs of chairs expossed, for fear that someone might become aroused, today you simply cannot broach the subject of profiles in crime, as someone is going to get their knickers so twisted up there, they might just burn down some buildings and kill people.

The same issue has been seen in other Northern nations.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/02/muslim-rape-epidemic-in-sweden-and.html

And, in whose benefit is it that people not be kept tabs on? Do we wait until we have a situation as is observed in Lebanon, where terrorism is as common as boys scouts in Canada?

You know why so many Lebanese families are dieing in this war in the middle east? Well, aside from the missiles that miss their target, the main reason why so many Lebanese are dieing, is because they place the missiles right inside their properties! They live in the same buildings where the missiles are being fired from.

I have heard, they even fire them from within their own living space. So, if the war is about statistics, and shahid martyrs are the way they intend to win this war against democracy, it appears they are placeing their enitre families into the line of fire on purpose.

The geneva convention is very specific when it comes to civilians located in places where enemy fire is coming from. There is no protection for these people. This means, there is no violation of International laws, from the defending nation, who fires specifically at the military target. And yet how many people get that information from the media articles they read?

So, what has this got to do with the issue in Canada?

Well, for one, when a terrorist group forms, they do so in secret. Their supporters are in secret. They move about with stealth. Their aims are not public. Therefore, when something like terror cell 17 comes to the media, it is only possible to be made public, on the grounds that they offend the criminal code, and never on the basis of their religion.

Religion itself, is not something measured in relation to crime. And Universities will not touch the subject with a ten foot pole, due to fears of violating the Charter. So, there is simply no hard core research on the subject. It is the ulitmate taboo.

And where will our society be hit from?

What do enemies do?

Do they come in through legitimate means? NO THEY DO NOT!

USA was blind sided by the attacks 9.11, because they could not see it coming. Although we have eyes, ears, and skin sensory, we have permitted the greatest ability we have, our human intellects, to be oppressed by the politically correct, to the point were we simply do not have the data we need to answer what is the actual test we need to make, to ensure the safety and well being of all our people. And yet, at the same time, we trust for all our safety and security in our law officials.

So, what to do?

We either end up as fearful, untrusting, cowed people, rushing from one imagined horror, to another, OR we use our greatest aparatus, keep cool, and look into areas, collect data, and information on what really matters. And, we go by what we know about these freaks. And what we know, is they are where ever our legitimate society ends.

Posted by: Lady | 25-Jul-06 10:09:16 AM

RG,

Even Christ does not forgive without confession and repentance first. Forgiveness follows these two prerequisites.

Confession and repentance must be asked and made by individuals for individual forgiveness.

You have a misconception about Christian forgiveness, RG.

Posted by: Speller | 25-Jul-06 10:37:48 AM

Hence the Saturday afternoon trips to the dimly lit wooden closet, Speller. However, the forgiveness I talk about is the Christian charity that lies in the hearts of most faithful Christians, whether they are extremely devout or not.

Posted by: RightGirl | 25-Jul-06 11:09:37 AM

In spite of Mr. Selley's pomposity and near incoherence I take his point: banning a religion is not who we are and would change us. Yes, expelling Islam from our shores would take care of the Islamofascists among us but OTOH countries that have traveled this same road never endure and are invariably scum (My point, not Selley's). I don't share RG's alarm nor Selley's hissy fit agitation regarding the threat of Islamofascism. On the field of battle (which is where things are really decided) Islamofascism loses time and time again to western volunteer armies. In fact they're once again losing. In the past Israel had to contend with every neighbor; now it's a small army of terrorists with two sponsor states both in danger of collapse. Without oil money the Islamofascists would be reduced to throwing camel dung at passersby and judging by the discarded transportation modes and energy sources over the last 200 years Islamofascism's revenue stream is definitely time sensitive. Israel's prosecution of their war with the Army of Allah is decidedly different than previous conflicts. Condemnation is absent or shallow. Nobody likes these guys (the Islamofacists). Their strength is loud and flashy but lacks substance. Canada, if she chose to go on a war footing could defeat every Islamofacist country simultaneously. Watch what happens if Iran seriously pisses off the United States. I understand that the Army of Allah has taken pointers from the Japanese Imperial Army and its tactics on Okinawa. They should reference what happened to that army on that island and in that war. In short, I am in agreement with Mr. Selley: we should keep all our freedoms and hunt down every Islamofascist wishing to do us harm and kill him.
Rodger Beals

Posted by: Rodger Beals | 25-Jul-06 11:41:36 AM

To Mambo Bananapatch...

That picture you refer to about the boy having is arm run over is a fake......

In reality, Islam daily prosecutes so many daily horrors from the Southern Phillipines to England that we can always refer to a myriad of real practices of brutality ad infinitum in Darul Islam!

Back to the original debate...

As for banning Islam, at this point I can't see how....we don't ban its cousins Nazism or Marxism so how are we going to ban Islam?

The day may come when we have to take some serious draconian steps against this murderous cult but not yet......and certainly we don't have to ban truly moderate sects like Ismailies or Ahymadies or Sufis........it is Orthodox (Correct) Islam that has to be are target...

Posted by: Albertanator | 25-Jul-06 11:52:36 AM

Rodger,

The point a lot of people are making is that the Islamofascists need not win on a field of battle. They are winning in the nurseries.

We are being beaten by demographics. When the time comes, they will outnumber the rest of us. When that happens they will vote for one last time. They will vote for the Caliphate. We will lose.

The other front is public relations. On that front, they have been wining the propaganda war handily since the media, left and academe are shilling for their side.

Vietnam wasn't lost on the battlefield but on CBS and the NYT's editorial pages.

Posted by: Warwick | 25-Jul-06 11:52:52 AM

Warwick,

Vietnam was lost in the White house. The democrat presidents who brought America into the Vietnam War wouldn't let the military strike into the safe havens of North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, where the Vietcong and NVA were being trained and supplied from.

Kind of like Northwest Pakistan, Iran, and Syria.

Posted by: Speller | 25-Jul-06 12:10:42 PM

Speller,

Partially true (Nixon was no better than his dem counterparts.) But at any rate, they didn't take the gloves off for fear of the domestic response (as in the press and the hippies) as well as the response from China.

Posted by: Warwick | 25-Jul-06 12:15:13 PM

Yes, Warwick. but I think President Nixon was a little better. When he began heavily bombing North Vietnam with B-52s he brought the communists to the peace table in Paris.

The Democratic Presidents before Nixon could have done the exact same thing.

No response from China and Russia.

Watergate ended the B-52 strikes and weakened the U.S. negotiating position.

Posted by: Speller | 25-Jul-06 12:24:09 PM

Albertanor,

We don't need to ban Nazim or Communism, they have been publicly condemned by history and our leaders.

Nazim and Communism are known for what they are and have been deconstructed and denounced.

Islam is called the Religion of Peace by our leaders, the media, and educators. It is given unearned undeserved respect and whitewashed by them.

Posted by: Speller | 25-Jul-06 12:29:25 PM

Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia bans the Bible. Why can't we ban the Koran?

Posted by: Canadian | 25-Jul-06 12:29:33 PM

Canadian,

Same reason only Quebec has Bill 101, the rest of us are too tolerant and civilized to adopt it.

Posted by: Speller | 25-Jul-06 12:35:32 PM

Peacefull?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19902833-2702,00.html

Posted by: Shawn | 25-Jul-06 1:04:26 PM

Perhaps I am alone in that I can no longer muster up any tolerance for people who plug their ears to what the huge number of Islamists who express openly their goal and objectives for the whole non Islamic world, and close their eyes to daily examples of Muslim violence.

Furthermore I do not care to find their dribble on Western Standard's blog, since that is all reads and hears from MSM.

Posted by: Alain | 25-Jul-06 1:21:58 PM

Good points Speller and I feel your pain Alain....no nothing lib fools are bad enough but I wouldn't think we would be so infested with them here on this blog???

Shouldn't Ted and Shane and others be posting on rabble and DU etc etc????

Posted by: Albertanator | 25-Jul-06 2:20:52 PM

Ted,

The Bible is equally violent passages and calls on the killing of non-believers as well.

I've never read the Bible, but I'll take your word for it. And when they actually start killing non-believers -- or anybody else, in the name of their God -- I will concede the point to you.

Until then it's an extremely poor comparison, because there are daily instances of Muslims killing in the name of Islam.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

Posted by: Mambo Bananapatch | 25-Jul-06 2:22:34 PM

Sorry, that first paragraph ("The Bible...") should have been in quotes as it is from Ted's post.

Posted by: Mambo Bananapatch | 25-Jul-06 2:24:10 PM

Albertanator,

You're quite right. The picture in question was a fake and has been removed.

Posted by: Mambo Bananapatch | 25-Jul-06 2:25:57 PM

If I may return to my original point re practical steps to proscribing Islam or reclassifying it:-
1. Koran to be challenged as a tract calling for warfare against all non-members of the sect; are there not any laws in Canada against bigotry or inciting to riot or murder? "racism" seems a useful catch-all charge
2. maddrasses or Moslem schools to be challenged on grounds of using Koran as a training manual and therefore exposed, not as schools for learning, per se, but for indoctrination into warfare (on www.jihadwatch.org the Pakistani Education Minister stated yesterday that jihad will continue to be taught in all Pakistani schools "despite the reservations of some Western countries"; purely coincidentally, Pakistan is continuing with its work on nuclear weapons)
3. mosques required to conduct services in language of host country, i.e. English and to have observers present who will record all speechifying
4. finanical measures which are geared to Sharia law (such as interest-free mortgages) to be banned (Britain has already set up these 'Moslem-friendly' mortgage schemes)
5. too obvious almost to mention, but...immigration of all Moslems, either from Moslem or non-Moslem lands to be banned
6. laws banning 'forced marriages' and 'honour killings' (yes, I know, normal human beings refer to these as slavery and as murder but Moslems are slow learners)
7. setting up 'safe houses' and schemes whereby Moslem women and girls can lodge and also bring legal charges with state protection
8. female circumcision banned and any doctor and other individuals (including relatives) participating in it to have professional qualifications removed and, quite important, immediate deportation of all involved (before everyone becomes too emotional about Moslem women, consider how permitting Moslem injustices against women to continue affects the tax-payers: in Germany over 50% of all battered women seeking social assistance of the National Health Service are from Moslem communities; wouldn't you rather your tax money went elsewhere than propping up a barbaric system?)
9. do you have issues which can be put up as referendums by the public? if so, why not put a few of these on petitions for referendum questions?
10. start boycotting any and all Moslem businesses. Seems to have worked for the other side in the cartoons fiasco.
11. exert control over number of Moslem teachers allowed into the public education system; in America some are teaching pre-teens about the joys of jihad in their public school systems
12. investigation of Moslem 'charity' organisations; these are usually fronts for terrorist funding; put strict controls on amount of sums which are permitted to leave Canada emanating from such organisations.
Any suggestions?

Posted by: Centurion | 25-Jul-06 2:37:13 PM

Centurion, much of what you propose makes sense, though I see a problem when boycotting Muslim businesses. Most franchisees in major cities these days are of Middle Eastern Origin: Subways, MacDonalds, your local 7/11, pizza place and gas station - many of these are run by Muslims. And taxis! It would be near impossible to boycott them. Also banning immigration based on religion without first denouncing the religion itself may pose a problem.

Posted by: RightGirl | 25-Jul-06 2:46:57 PM

Excellent points, Tozetre. Ted's response to your point about Germany and WW2 was way off. The allies bombed the living hell out of Germany, killing hundreds of thousands in Berlin, Dresden, and so on. This was because the entire nation of Germany was complicit in the war, and to defeat the German army, the factories arming it, and the people serving in it had to be sufficiently weakened.

I agree also with Lady's comments regarding the current situation in Lebanon, however, I think the Geneva convention became irrelevant as of the 11th of September, 2001. Moral superiority becomes irrelevant when you are forced to defend yourself against an enemy who wishes to murder your entire nation. Israel should let it be known that all non-combatants (not civilians, because Hezbollah is an irregular force) must clear south Lebanon, and then absolutely bomb and mine the hell out of it. Level everything. The real solution would be to cut off the beast's heads, Iran and China, but alas, the way of the democratic world is to wait until the enemy gains enough strength to attack fully, then we fight with one hand tied behind our backs.

So here we wait, 1936 all over again. At least the Japanese will be on our side this time... they have forgetten more about suicide attacks than the Muslims will ever know ;)

Posted by: Big Makk | 25-Jul-06 2:55:07 PM

Thanks for your response to my post, Warwick. I believe you, in part, make my point. Vietnam was most definitely lost on the battlefield long before it ever became an issue in the media and on campus. If the generals had been allowed to plan and prosecute the war as they have done in the two Iraq conflicts we would have had a similar result. Issues such we disccuss are settled on the battlefield. This is not to belittle your other points of birthrate and voting patterns. Both are more than valid. I think however Ronald Reagan was correct in believing that most people long to be free, to enjoy the fruits of their labors and raise their children as they see fit. Iran, the driving force behind Islamofascism tetters on the verge of civil war. A large and growing pro-western democracy movement will in time destroy Iran's evil regime. Winning the war in the media as you correctly point out the Islamofascists have done has become increasingly less significant. Western culture's strength, its freedom and technology is ascendant; Islamofascism is just the latest speedbump.
Rodger Beals

Posted by: Rodger Beals | 25-Jul-06 3:00:31 PM

Big Makk,

I agree with your comment. Not to be forgotten, Germany bombed Coventry first.

Western populations prior to WWII feared carpet bombing by vast fleets of long range bombers the way post-WWII western populations fear the use of nuclear weapons.

Posted by: Speller | 25-Jul-06 3:46:29 PM

Banana at 2:22:

I believe those are called historical texts about what actually happened during the development of a nation.

Once each specific action is finished, it's done.

The Qur'an, by contrast, gives an open-ended command to wage incessant war until the entire earth submits to the will of Allah through the Sword of God.

Nowhere in the New Testament will you find violence as either a suggested or a commanded way to solve one's problems.

What would you propose the Jews of the Old Testament have done ... smile while their enemies killed them all. Do you figure there would be any Jews left today if they didn't fight back against aggression?

If somebody was lobbing shells into your living room, would you just sit there and take it? Somehow, I don't believe you're quite that stupid ... but if you prove me wrong, that's all right.

Posted by: Set you free | 25-Jul-06 4:29:11 PM

DIM VIEW OF ISLAM
OTTAWA -- Canada is heading toward conflict with its Muslim population, says the head of a study on Canadian attitudes toward Islam.

The study found that the majority of Canadians held a negative view of Muslim countries.

_____________
Read the rest http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2006/07/25/1701133-sun.html

Posted by: Canadian | 25-Jul-06 5:06:54 PM

RightGirl, if you don't want moderate adherents of Islam harrassed or imprisoned or deported, then you probably shouldn't have written this: "Islam must be labelled for what it truly represents: wholesale slaughter and a corrupt ideology of sex and death. It must be stopped."

It appears now that you don't actually believe these things. You say all the regular Muslim folk you interact with "by Islamic standards are not really Muslim at all". I think I'll take their word over yours.

There are very convenient adjectives you can put in front of "Muslim" to describe the people you now claim to dislike: extremist, fundamentalist, etc. But you chose to focus on Islam, period. Were you confused then, or are you backtracking now?

Posted by: Chris Selley | 25-Jul-06 7:11:12 PM

"Moderate" Muslims elect terrorists like Hamas.

"Moderate" Muslims sympathize with terrorist like Hizballah just like the Lebanese "Canadian" who said publicly in media: "Hizballah is protecting our home".

"Moderate" Muslims are pushing our elected Government and media to support THEIR interests. It's all about them.

"Moderate" Muslims are always in the media wanting this and wanting that and demanding this and demanding that...

"Moderate" Muslims are the ones who protest our freedoms of expression.

"Moderate" Muslims are taking up more than their share. What about the other minorities? That's not fair for the rest of our welcomed minorities.

We're fed up with the "Moderate" Muslims. They're nothing but a burden.

Posted by: Canadian | 25-Jul-06 8:01:12 PM

The argument on this thread (keep the insults to a dull roar, please) seems to center around whether or not a belief system that is not 'nice' and 'tolerant' can be considered a valid religion or not. It completely misses the point. Most any religion, secularism in particular, can be shown to have been bloody at some time or other. Niceness isn't the issue. To take the point further; how do we know murder, etc. is so bad?
Perhaps we should discuss which beliefs are True and use that as the foundation of our moral indignation.

Posted by: TJ | 25-Jul-06 8:04:39 PM

I think RightGirl has a point. There is a problem with Islam (and I believe Irshad Manji wrote a book about that). There is too much evidence out there for the "hey, it's only a small minority of Muslims who distort the teachings of a great religion" argument to have credence. The problem has been there for centuries, by the way. Many wars were fought to protect Europe from Muslims. Now Muslims are among us. It's a different kind of war. At best, it's a culture clash.

All of them? No. But the religion is actually a problem. Banning it won't work and wouldn't be acceptable. Looking at our immigration system and asking the legitimate question of who we want entering our country - that is acceptable. Developing a plan to integrate immigrants rather than segregate through failed multicultural "pie in the sky" ideology - that is acceptable.

Posted by: Howard Roark | 25-Jul-06 8:22:17 PM

Ted, Makk;

Makk, thanks.

Ted: about Germany...
"No compromise is possible and the victory of the democracies can only be complete with the utter defeat of the war machines of Germany and Japan."
- G.C. Marshall, Chief of Staff

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George S. Patton, Jr

"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-***** Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a snake!"
- General George S. Patton, Jr (addressing to his troops before Operation Overlord, June 5, 1944)

and a few about Japan, in the same war;

"No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

"When this war is over, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell."
- Admiral Bill Halsey (December 7, 1941)

So to answer this question;
"I wonder what would have happened in Central Europe if instead we said they are inherently evil to the core and "must be stopped" and "eliminated"."
- Ted.

The answer is that we would have bombed Berlin, nuked Hiroshima, won the war, and ushered in 50 years of peace and prosperity for Japan and central/western Europe and western (and, later, eastern) Germany.

Posted by: Tozetre | 25-Jul-06 8:55:27 PM

Chris, "moderate" or extremist, all "Muslims" I have ever heard, talked to or seen interviewed are of one voice on matters of the "Zionists." That voice is not of moderation coz the intended result regarding the Jews of Israel is to "settle" the ?alestinian "issue" to the satisfaction of the ?alestinians (PLO Charter: "liberation" by "armed resistance" towards the ultimate "elimination of Zionist entity").

The ?alestinians are the self-described "vanguard" of the iSLAMic cause and that cause makes shahids of children glorifying the blood of Jews as payback for Jewish sovereignty in Jerusalem, of all unchallengable places! This is no different than the modes of Muhammad who broke treaties he never intended to keep, slew innocents by beheading (does that strike a familiar spinal chord?), took slaves (slavery still exists in the iSLAMic world) and sexually violated one of his wives, a six year old girl, or maybe she was all of nine when the "prophet" deflowered the child, I stand corrected (/sarcasm OFF).

Have you yet heard a "moderate" cry out over the beheadings of the three Indonesian xtian schoolgirls a few months back? Nada.

But publish a cartoon, accurately caricaturing the pedophile "perfect man" of iSLAM as a violent slaughterer, and risk threat of beheading (so, how's your War on Irony going...?) and the "moderates" tsk tsk the free society for daring to enjoy the free speech all the non-Muzzle'ems died in WWII to maintain for their kin, their neighbours, in their OWN free land.

Just sayin', but we can see the difference in how we use the crescent moon. By tradition, they put it on their mosques and we, on our outhouses. Maybe the dhimmis among us are gonna start demanding we purge L'il Abner cartoons from our past on account of that "humiliating" and "insensitive" outhouse door?

It's the dhimmitude, dude. Read some Bat Ye'or if you are really interested in speaking with some cred on the subject.

As far as how you will "take their word over [RightGirl's], your really oughta know that the Koran states it is not necessary for an infidel to be told the truth and that Muhammad said, "War is deception," which in itself isn't significant except that iSLAM sees the world in two ways:

1. Dar iSLAM: the realm of iSLAM
2. Dar al-Harb: the realm of war

"War is deception."

Posted by: wharold | 25-Jul-06 9:08:30 PM

Chris - as I said, the people I grew up with over the years are not "really muslim". Rather they are Muslim by default, the way I was baptized Catholic before I knew what the choices were. I'm okay with that, but not devout. You say you'll take their word over mine - however they have not presented themselves here for discussion, and I have. Maybe drop me an email or something, and I'll arrange introductions.

Islam as it stands is a threat to our society, and I do not backtrack on that. I will go further and say it is a threat to itself (its own worst enemy) because as many have pointed out, it kills more of its own than it does the infidel. The Clinton administration - right or wrong - certainly had no compunction against sending in the army to bulldoze a cult in Texas because women and children were at risk. Yes, those people classified themselves as Christians, even though Christian society wanted nothing to do with them.

Do we see mass amounts of Muslims calling child services or the police on other Muslims? No. They keep their mouths shut, because that is their gangland code. With few exceptions (which thankfully include the source for the Toronto 17), they refuse to speak up and speak out and put their brethren in a situation where they have to defend themselves legally in front of our courts. You won't see the government bulldozing our mosques, but are they not a greater threat to wider society than a bunch of Jesus freaks out in the Texas desert?

You know what I would really like to see? I would like to see that average Joe (or Moe, in this case) walk out of the mosque and say "No, they're crazy, this isn't for me." And then have a hundred Moes and then a thousand and then a hundred thousand, until the cult leaders finally get it through their heads that the masses do not want this hatred taught as glory. But notice that never happens? Notice no one walks away denouncing the cult? Instead they sit in quiet subservience, and keep their mouths shut when the next fifty or a hundred or a thousand people are killed. Islam is dangerous, it is a brainwashing cult, and anyone who truly buys into it is a threat. I stand by that.

Posted by: RightGirl | 25-Jul-06 9:27:46 PM

RG:

And the words uttered by today's jihadist imams are no different than the ones uttered in the days of Muhammad.

There are more than a few examples of this, but since I am on holidays in beautiful B.C., I don't have all my reference material on me.

Trust me, walking into a mosque with one of the really studied imams is just like walking into a time machine back to the seventh century ... to them there is no difference.

But then, Ecclisiastes also wondered: If all the rivers flow into the ocean, then why do the oceans never fill up?

The kingdom of God is timeless and today's times should not matter. If anybody else could understand this, they might be able to understand the spiritual part, the good Muhammad borrowed from the Old and New Testaments.

To wage a constant jihad and to suggest Jesus's second coming will be as a jihadist, as a recent poster did ... well, that's pretty frightening.

I guess somewhere in their texts, they figured Jesus would also turn show the brutal side of human nature like Muhammad did and drive the Jews that killed his human form into the ocean.

I'm just guessing, but I bet if I did some research, that would be pretty close ... since that's what one wacko has already posted.

Posted by: Set you free | 25-Jul-06 10:48:26 PM

Sorry about my earlier post, for I should have read it before posting. Too late I saw I was missing words, etc., but I think the point was made.

I would suggest a simple test for anyone seeking to define a "moderate" Muslim. A few questions will determine if he or she is not Anti-Semitic and if he or she respects Israel's right to exist. If the individual passes this simple test, then he or she would qualify as moderate.

Posted by: Alain | 25-Jul-06 11:04:15 PM

Speller,

In times of war, decisions must be made between black and blacker.

In relation to war, Churchill had to make some decisions, about not notifying people about a known bombing, that the Germans were going to make, because any notification of the population about the upcoming attack prior to normal means of knowing, would mean that the Germans would know that their code had been broken. So, by virtue of particular decisions, it is true that certain hundreds of thousands of people may have died in GB as a result of his choices, but in the end, the Germans lost the war, because of the advantage that knowing that code, gave the allied forces.

Churchill accepted full responsibility for his decisions.

The current war, between the terrorist forces and the State of Israel, has better technology, but the same issue of what creates and destroys advantages.

The biased attitudes against Israel and her people, are what clouds the analysis. There is no doubt in my mind, that the very same people who are against Israel today, would have ignored the plea of the Jewish people during WWII. The lesson that the Jewish people learned from all that has been perpetrated against them, is that if they do not defend themselves, then who else will?

It could be said, in retrospect, that not every decision made by GB and the allied forces, were squeaky clean. Then again, war is never clean. What matters, is not the lost battles, but the end, where the war is won!

I believe that the merits of Israel, in her steadfastness to make righteous decisions, even in the blackest of times, will be noted in the history books and the book of life, even in the choosing between black and blacker.

Posted by: Lady | 26-Jul-06 10:39:50 AM

"Islam as it stands is a threat to our society, and I do not backtrack on that. I will go further and say it is a threat to itself (its own worst enemy) because as many have pointed out, it kills more of its own than it does the infidel. The Clinton administration - right or wrong - certainly had no compunction against sending in the army to bulldoze a cult in Texas because women and children were at risk."

No "right or wrong" about it. It was wrong. Using this wrong act to justify your own thoughts indicates to me that folks such as you are a greater threat to society.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 26-Jul-06 12:13:31 PM

Alain,

You are onto something, but not quite there.

The term moderate supposes specific traits.

Traits can be measured according to quantity.

An example of trait is aggression. A person can be non-aggressive or extremely-aggressive, or any amount inbetween, including moderately-aggressive.

The discussion should not be about traits, but about types. Types are specific categories, that do not vary internally by quantity. For example, a man, a boy, a girl are nominal measures, but a western man, a western girl, a western boy, are categories that cannot be varied!

Your test is correct, but the label should not be by amount, as one amount can easily slip into another amount. For example: A non-aggressive person can become extremely agressive, but a type of person, can be either, and yet as a type, they would never show their aggression to something, or would to another matter.

By looking at the matter this way, you can apply an adjective, and not worry about whether there is any slippery slope, as none exists in the first place.

So, by that same measure, a thoroughly westernized Muslim does not have to worry about whether people consider them to be a moderate Muslim, who would slide into extremism on provocation.

A westernized Muslim, can say they are not that type, and hold their head up high, and say their values are one with the west! They would not be fence sitters, or support terrorist organizations, and that would be as clear as day! The same standard, of course, exists for all Canadians, regardless of their religion, and therefore would or could be applied equally, without any form of discrimination whatsoever on the basis of the Charter!

And, in relation to home growns who become the type of person who cannot be trusted loose, they can be given the choice of exit or prison, should it be decided that their values would lead them to actions that violate the rights and duties of Canadians, to live in peace, and support the laws of this land. An example of a person who was imprisoned for life, on the basis of their type, is Charles Manson. Although he did not commit the attrocities, he perpetrated the actions, through others, by virtue of the type of person he was.

What do you think?

Posted by: Lady | 26-Jul-06 1:22:23 PM

Islam is wrong and incompatible with our free society.

Arranged marriages, killing apostates, the sharia and Islamic culture are all wrong.

Posted by: Canadian | 26-Jul-06 6:51:17 PM

There are a lot of post 911 experts on Islam.

I'm not an "expert" in the sense I've a Masters in Islamic studies, but I'D read a lot about the faith long before the events in New York.

A belif systeme that bills itself "a WHOLE way of life" cannot be seen simply as "religion".

When the public and private, the secular and the divine are fused seamlessly, and when a manichean division between "pure" and "impure", "believer" and "non-believer" is added to the mix, that belief systeme then becomes pure, unadulterated ideology.

Islam talks "Christian"; its narrative makes abundant use of terms such as "mercy", "apostle", "forgiveness" etc, but when Islam walks it often goose-steps.

What's more, a code of ethics that seeks to micro-manage EVERY SINGLE aspect of a person's life is the opposite of religion. That's why so much of Islam's thrust is NOT salvation in the next life, but rather controle and domination in the here and now.

It is, thus, an ideology.

People here have cited numerous authors who've churned out post 911 works. Some here don't trust these books.

I would invite the skeptics to read up on Islam via neutral authors such as Arnold Toynbee.

Posted by: John Palubiski | 27-Jul-06 9:55:52 AM

Canadian, I agree with you. We need to promote all the best aspects of a free society: drunk driving, bearing children from multiple men, living in sin until the Church grants you an annulment, telling people they won't go to Heaven until they accept Jesus, outlawing important science that could save lives over unused frozen embryos, teens giving blow-jobs to associates known as "Friends With Benfits.

Live on Free Society!!!

Posted by: Geoff H | 27-Jul-06 10:04:26 AM

Geoff,

You know the difference between a woman getting raped in Canada an a woman being raped in a nation dominated by shariah laws?

OK, I'll spare you the sorrow of your inability to comprehend and learn.

People are people, and wrongs are done. In Canada, if a woman is raped, the law states she has the right to complain, present the proof, and have the rapist found, charged, and if found guilty, punnished. Rape does not occur in Canada without impunity!

Under shariah, a woman who complains of rape, who does not also present four men as witnesses to the rape, is charged with adultry, if she is married. She, in fact, by making the complaint, has made a confession that a man stuck his whatsit into her. If she is not married, she is also charged. In both situations, the woman is blammed for the rape, and her family shamed! There are many cases of women being killed by their family, for having shamed the family and her honour.

You ever hear about a rape that happens, where there are four male witnesses, who would not have the power to tear the rapist off of the woman, to stop the crime? Or how about gang rape? I've held the hand of 12 year old girls, who have been gang raped. In this blessed country Canada, the girl or the woman is treated, and vindication sought. It is no surprise therefore, that we have open statistics on such matters. In nations where they claim that stuff does not happen, and who have such a biased system, it is apparent that such biased views, as you have, surface. They can claim that crime is low, but they do not categorize crimes, when in fact they occur.

Where men immigrate from such nations where they are raised under shariah, and come to the west, they are often shocked that the law is not in their favour. Due to the shush on profiling and rape in Canada, we are not permitted to disclose rape statistics. But other nations have done the research.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20552

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21502

So, I believe that we are honest about problems in the west. I, as a woman, would never ever EVER go live in a nation where there is shariah. I happen to disaprove of a system that does not protect its ladies. And, I find your ignorance to the facts as they are experienced by women in those nations, appauling.

Clearly, the best of what is the west, you have simply no knowledge of whatsoever. And the shame that of shariah, you will never admit to.

Tragic really.

Posted by: Lady | 27-Jul-06 10:53:50 AM

Geoff is a troll Lady.

Posted by: Speller | 27-Jul-06 11:00:22 AM

Lady I do not disagree with you and admit that I greatly simplified the matter. Clearly in the end we must judge people by their actions, behaviour and not their words. I do think my little test would be a good start as long as final judgement is based on behaviour. Otherwise we fall for the old "some of my best friends are Jews" (could be blacks, or whatever group in other situations) while the same person actually practises Anti-Semitism.

Posted by: Alain | 27-Jul-06 11:48:57 AM

Speller, a troll would just write a posting of invective at you. I have views but they're not based on your potent combination of Biblical crap, racist bullshit, taking liberties with facts (amazing how you beat the IDF to completing the investigation on the UN deaths), and overall neo-nazi leanings. So you call me a troll. Very manly of you. Just get back to your Bible ..... or go convert some poor Africans or something.

Lady, your grade one level of comprehension of posts is most frustrating. Nowhere have I said that I support Sharia law. You need to get your head out of your ass and learn that it's not all US OR THEM. PEOPLE CAN HAVE OPINIONS THAT VARY IN-BETWEEN!!!!!

Posted by: Geoff H | 27-Jul-06 12:12:45 PM

Red Ted,
How about Gamil Gharbi? (Yeah, I know that's from a lot earlier in the thread, but I was on vacation)

Posted by: A Different Sean | 27-Jul-06 9:09:35 PM

Geoff H. look at the time of my post. 11:00 AM

Look at the time of your post when you called us all wingnuts on the other thread.

You said Fire Koffi Anan thread July 27/2006 10:30 AM:
"Speller, what purpose would be served by trying to rationalize with people that think the UN is part of Hezbollah, that "God" promised Israel everything it wants, and who show absolutely no grief for a CANADIAN who lost his life??

I seriously doubt you wingnuts would be so understanding if a Hezbollah rocket had killed the Canadian UN PEACEkeeper (and he's a full-blooded white man, too. Not some "worthless Arab" like those children from Montreal)."
Posted by: Geoff H | Thursday, July 27, 2006 at 10:30 AM

I thought you were a troll.
You wouldn't argue points or make assertions.

You started out spurning the ad hominem logical fallacy and then utilized it liberally.

Later you invoked Godwin's Law. Twice. Then I knew you weren't a troll.

Geoff H you are an internet novice. Wet behind the ears.
Basically a stunned monkey.

And a pomo moraly bankrupt Eastern pinko.

You have no more moral discernment than a raisin.

It doesn't matter how WE or YOU feel about people we never met being killed or maimed, this is a political forum to try and find the best road forward.

The only feeling that counts is the fire needed to chart and stay the true course.

The way of life.

Muslims love death more than we love life.

If you want to argue here I hope you've heard that before and know it comes from their prophet.

Posted by: Speller | 27-Jul-06 11:16:43 PM

Red Ted:
"How come no Canadian born or American born Muslim has gone on a killing spree or suicide bombing?"

You just haven't noticed them. Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi) of Montreal massacre infamy, is a good example of a Canadian-born muslim who went a good old muslim killing spree.

Posted by: José | 28-Jul-06 1:17:42 AM

To Ted and Mambo:

"The Bible is equally violent passages and calls on the killing of non-believers as well. (Ted)

I've never read the Bible, but I'll take your word for it. (Mambo)

This is getting bad when one moron ends up quoting another moron. Listen up, you pair of dimwits, THE BIBLE DOES NOT CALL FOR THE KILLING OF NON-BELIEVERS! I believe moron Mambo when he says he's never read the Bible, but I'm puzzled why he'd end up here admitting it to the world and accepting the Bible nonsense being spewed by moron Ted. Can you guys please go back and finish grade 9 before posting to this, or any other, blog?

Posted by: Propellerhead | 28-Jul-06 1:37:37 AM

Canada dosen't ban religions and never will? I dunno; I can't imagine that the RCMP or CHRC wouldn't eventually shut down a Church of the Creator group on hate-speech grounds if one should ever show up...

Posted by: Dudley Morris | 3-Aug-06 1:39:18 PM

Post a comment

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Monday, July 24, 2006

Wrong

TrackBack

Comments