The Shotgun Blog
Monday, June 12, 2006
The terrorist next door
I’ve been scouring the net for Muslim’s in Canada writing blogs because I simply want to see what they have to say and think as I have a lot of doubts with everything I’ve been hearing in the news. We are all Canadian’s and this wall needs to come down:
There is a disturbing problem with the title of this entry; it is true! Yes, it really is. Last Friday my entire neighborhood found out that among us lived a man who seems to have had every intention to kill massive amounts of Canadians for no reason.
A year ago, Toronto city councillor & TTC Chairman Howard Moscoe said that Toronto is safe from terror because “terrorists would have to find us on a map first!” He couldn’t have been more wrong. It appears that they don’t even have to consult a map because they already live here. And while they live with us, enjoy the freedoms we do, gain the benefits of Canada’s various social programs exactly like every other Canadian; they want to kill us! As to why, this is what I’m going to try to answer here.
Visit The Thinking Blog.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The terrorist next door:
Some of us in the boonies of Ontario are not terribly surprised to find that the gunslingers and jihadists are most comfortable in the large cities like Toronto.
Toronto, run for decades with a series of lefty Mayors and councils, like Sewell, Eggleton, Barabara Hall, June Rowlands, now David Miller,councillors like Howard Moscoe lefty bootlickers like flap-Jack Layton and Olivia Chow.
Should we then be surprised that Toronto is perfectly suitable for hatred to fester and flourish while the likes of the bleeders in municipal councils blithely refer to the alleged killers as "disenfranchised youth."
Wake up municipal bleeding hearts, the alleged killers are in your own cities, taking advantage of your twisted "more basketball courts" logic!
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2006-06-12 10:53:57 AM
Look at what is happening in France. Do you really think that muslims there are looking for integration? Nah, it's the other way around. On the long run, they hope to take control of the country. Look at their birthrate compared to the one of the French.
Why would they ask for Shariah law to be implemented in Ontario? Remember, the goal of Islam is not to integrate but to dominate the world.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-06-12 11:38:17 AM
The fellow at 'The Thinking Blog'seems to have his head screwed on fairly sensibly. But on his "About Me" page, one can't help but notice the order in which he lists his points of identity - "Muslim, Arab ... Canadian" and "Muslim, Arab,...". I hope that this isn't a true reflection of his loyalties at crunch time.
This highlights a flaw in our deeply flawed multicuturalism policy. The least we can expect from citizens is their loyalty to their country's values and interests. Not that one can't be a Muslim, an Arab and a loyal Canadian at the same time. However if there is a conflict of interest, loyalty to Canada's interests must come first.
Our constitution and national government should ONLY be promoting Canadian values, institutions and interests. Any federal programs should encourage newcomers to adapt to them - to work towards or sustain a coherent national identity. But our multi-culturalist creed gets this precisely backwards. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms actively supports the maintenance of the traditions of newcomers' countries of origin.
Canada is a desireable place to migrate to because of its great success which in turn derives from its values, institutions and traditions. People migrate here because of their home nations' failures which arguably result from cultural flaws. Mindlessly promoting every newcomer's culture at the expense of our own is playing with fire.
It makes no sense whatever for a successful nation to encourage anything but that which made it successful in the first place. Multiculuralism, as a national 'strategy', makes no sense whatever.
Posted by: JR | 2006-06-12 1:24:11 PM
I went to the blog in question and of course am happy to see this person rejecting jihadists according to his statements. If I am not mistaken he made the claim (like our media, leaders, etc.) that the jihadists only represent a small minority of Muslims. I must admit having difficulty with this claim, since there has been no evidence of the "majority" taking back their mosques, religion and religious schools. Nor am I aware of mass demonstration by the majority denouncing the deeds of Muslim terrorists. If the vast majority abhor the jihadists, how is it possible for the jihadists to hide so easily from the police and authorities? Why are their preachers of hate not being denounced and exposed?
Posted by: Alain | 2006-06-12 1:42:58 PM
There is Saudi money and Qu'rans coming here. Since the vast majority of Canadians do not read Arabic, we are totally unaware of what they are preaching. And fully assimilated Arabs, who are not religious, are in no better position than anyone else for that matter, if they have not learned to read Arabic.
The Saudis are giving money and people support to the Mosques, just so that the material gets on the grounds here in Canada. They are on a mission, to establish the Caliphat around the world. So, if the Mosques remove the texts, they loose the money at the same time.
The texts espouse the dangerous ideology. Once the people have been programmed, they see nothing out of the ordinary. And they learn to be ashamed of even noticing, on the one hand, or saying anything on the other. The issue brings cleavage (and I am not talking breasts here boys).
ocial and political cleavage, literally, lifts them out of Canadian society and separates them from the masses. Social and political cleavage, and the fear and shame associated with it, pits them against the rest of the west, as well as fearing what the wahabists would say about them.
Traditionally, those Muslims who go apostate, or who do not practice in the manner to which the wahabists and jahadists (same thing) say they are required, are punnished. Again, submission is a requirement, and there is real apin associated with been seen as compromizing and assimilating with the west. The fear that they will be killed for not practicing is very real.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-12 3:01:32 PM
Muhammadism and Arab nationalism go hand-in-hand.
Since the Qur'an cannot be translated on the argument it would lose its meaning in the translation, only Arabs or those familiar with the Arab language are allowed to intepret the texts.
That's not my conjecture. That's what the Toronto Muslim gal (I can't recall her name off the top of my head even though she was on CBC TV just last week) writes in her book.
The gal did say in her book when her family first moved to Canada, her parents put her into a Christian daycare because it was free, but after becoming one of the top students, her parents pulled her out of the school.
She said she found the Christian teachings open and all questions she had were answered to her satisfaction.
She is trying to reform Muslim from within but methinks it's a futile effort.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-12 3:35:01 PM
The real reason why they do not translate, is so that only they can read and understand, while we are looked down upon, as infidels, dhimmis and objects to kill and rape when they so choose, because it is not condemned according to wahabism and jihadism.
Like we are lucky to be left alive, as their aim, as stated many times through al Quada, is to punnish the infidels.
That is why the whole arguement that the Palestinians are a people is so blatently rediculous.
First, there is no "p" sound in the Arab language! Ask any Arab! It is the truth, I tell you no lies!
Second, there was never a palestinian government or kingdom of any kind. If you think there was, then name one! Just one! Before Israel was the British mandate. The British mandate existed because there was no government or order. And before the British mandate it was the Ottoman Empire, and they are not palestinians either.
Third, there is no religion that is different from all others. The majority of palestinians, or those who call themselves as such, practice islam. And, islam is not native to the lands of Israel. Sure, there are a few Christians who calle themselves palestinians, but considering they fled with the others, it looks like they have no other choice. And furthermore, they are treated rather badly by the rest.
Fourth, the culture is the same!
Five, the language, of course, differs from none!
Six, they have relatives in every single other location. Now, they call them Palestinians, but you cannot find a legal document referring to them as a people before 1964.
You know, I believe a people can and should call themselves whatever they want, whenever they want. But they should be really honest about it, and that is not what I see coming from these people. Sure, they want their human rights respected, but it goes their way according to them, and not the other way as well.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-12 6:47:42 PM
"... while they live with us, enjoy the freedoms we do, gain the benefits of Canada’s various social programs exactly like every other Canadian; they want to kill us ..."
"Various social programs". There you have it. While I'm not letting the alleged would-be terrorists off the hook, idle hands are the devil's workshop. Chronic unemployment and underemployment, welfare cheques and a crappy, irrelevant public school system do not mix well with a male population with a gigantic, macho chip on their shoulder.
In a jurisdiction with lower taxes, less regulation, less Nanny Statism, less everything governmental, you would find that a much larger proportion of your immigrant male population would be far too busy working at gainful jobs and raising their families to want to throw everything away by cutting infidels' throats. And the few remaining nutcases who insist on taking the Quran literally would find themselves ratted out by their brothers even sooner than now.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2006-06-12 10:01:21 PM
They have a highly masculinized faith and culture. But, just because that is so, one should never underestimate the position females have within their society.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-12 11:29:43 PM
Justzumgai - Like you I am opposed to the nanny state which causes more problems than cures. However that does not explain the terrorists, since the majority are well educated and well off financially. The problem is not a social problem to be solved by social programs.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-06-13 12:49:52 AM
Western civilization has been feminized and it's pretty plain to see.
When the question of whether western men are men or mice, too often today they squeak up.
The answer is for western men to get somewhat stronger to help society move away from the kumbaya culture. I may be wrong, but I get the sense women despise wimps more than they do jerks. It's no wonder they don't want to bring more children into Wimp World. How do they know their man is going to be there when the going gets tough is all they demonstrate is whining about how tough they've got it?
That movement away from feminization should be much more attractive than the Macho Man culture of Islam.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-06-13 2:04:14 AM
Set you free free,
Very funny. I liked the last part. Yet I have not noticed men being more feminine than they ever have before. Perhaps that is just a reflection of blokes in your location? So, do guys in your part of the world ride Harleys in pink Tu-tus?
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-13 10:06:59 AM
I remember last year when I brought the Paris riots to the attention of some co-workers. Remember here in Canada there was nothing reported until almost 20 days into the fighting and rioting.
The 1st reaction I heard was the French deserve it, they treat their immigrant badly. Why don't these things happen in Canada? However, no-one could give me any proof that anyone was mistreated in France by their gov't. or anywhere else like Geat Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark etc.
Canadians forget very easy that a terrorist was caught crossing the Pacific Border crossing loaded with explosives to blow up LAX airport. They don't know that Mark Lapine is an alias for an Arab name of a muslim who killed 21 women in a Quebec school. Not many know that a group of men were arrested several years ago in Canada for plotting to blow up the Montreal Metro, but were released for a lack of evidence. These guys subsequently moved to the Toronto area. No one seems to know that during the last election a Montreal Mosque was raided during an anti-terror raid; a Muslim suspect subsequently stabbed a Police Man in the ribs during the raid and was shot dead. Muslim groups protested that this was an innocent man and that Police are racist(Sound familiar?). News broke that Osama Bin Ladens second in command who was responsible for aquiring weapons of mass destruction lived for eight years in Richmond, B.C. until 1999. And now we have this arrest in Ontario, and still no one that I can find can admit they are dead wrong in their beliefs that the problem does not lay with the Muslim religion.
Now I'm told it's Canadians fault for marginalizing Muslims, just like the French as everyone else does. Oh, woe is me what do? I just wonder what it will take for people to open their eyes and see that their civilization as they know it us under constant attack, and this attck will not cease until the world is Islamic.
God help us all!
Posted by: niv | 2006-06-13 12:49:18 PM
You made some outstanding points Niv.
The leftists love to blame the French in France for the problems that arose in the Muslim district. Their way is just another bleeding heart, screaming that the people are being oppressed, in good old maxist fashion. They, like all the marxists before them, use the victim, any kind of victim, to attempt to create instability, in the hopes of having a revolution, overthrowing the government, and installing a communist regime.
(Last time the communists tried that in an Arab nation, the fundamentalists swept in at the last minute, with khomeini, and set up the Iran as we know it today, instead of the republic of Iran as they wanted it then.)
Who said 'everybody wants to rule the world'?
And in Montreal, the islamofascists have alligned themselves, as they converniently have in other coutires, cities, and provinces, with the left. They have done that as it is a convenient in! Where else can you get subjective emotion without objective facts? The leftists sees the so called Che style clothing, and get all excited about the posibility of alligning forces against the capitalist machine and the military complex (ha, laugh at that one plese).
Why? Because in an afluent society, nobody else wants to listen to them!
Not one leftist seems to care that any kind of revolution as such would result in the deaths of thousands of people.
So much for human rights....
Back to France:
The French in France, meanwhile, are dumbfounded that a people as such, whom they have taken in and given everything as equally as all others, would treat them in the manner as they have. And yet instead of getting mad, and kicking the terrorists and their idiots out, they make up stories about oppression, and doing better next time, while blaming the Americans.
It is the automatic French default nerve. And if it were not for the Americans, the french would be speaking German in the streets of Paris today!
And Canadian media was dumb-struck in the truest sense of the word. I recall reading comments that things were getting quiet when between 150 and 300 cars were being burnt each night. No, still not terrorism, as if that were so, then the insurance companies would be able to say that none of the destroyed cars, would have to be paid for, as the insurance does not cover acts of terrorism. So, it was either terrorism or it was oppression. And so, the majority of people, insurance corporations included, as their cars were also torched, were content to minimize the event, and arrest people under other laws, without admitting that the issue was much more than a mere result of so-called oppression.
If that were the truth, then not only would the Muslim population be involved in riots.
Back to our country, the apathy towards the issue has been compounded by a past government that was sympathetic to terrorists. And issues concerning Quebec were over looked, as there was really little in it for the Liberals, to take the events seriously, as that would mean having to have a real internal policy against terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, while admitting they were too lax about the issue in the first place. Plus, they were not interested in dealing with the issue, as to do so may mean they might have to consider using the not-with-standing clause. That would have been highly unliberal of them!
And your point on Mark Lepine was timely.
Took me awhile to get the connection. I find it ironic that many of our free speechers though are also against feminists. If they really thought about it, there is power in feminism, and it really does not have to mean the feminization of men, as male identity is not dependent on female identity.
And in relation to the so called marginalization of Muslim groups in Canada, as you referenced, if they move in together in their own ghettos, attend only their own functions, both religious and social, avoid all infidels and dhimmis, and only spend time with non-Muslims in order to proslytize and convert them to Islam or their causes, or have sex with them (with or without conscent)then it is not the rest of Canada's fault they have not assimilated.
And those Muslims who are assimilated, well, they have nothing to do with those who are not assimilated. Are they to blame for the others refusing to assimilate? I would say no! If they hang out with us and respect us as equals, do they run the risk of being called apostates? That would be tragic! Would a true Muslim friend of ours really care about what other Muslims think? Or is it just that it is the rest of us infidels and dhimmis who are at fault for the so-called marginalization?
I don't think so.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-13 3:09:42 PM
JR Said (from a comment above):
>>> But on his "About Me" page, one can't help but notice the
>>> order in which he lists his points of identity - "Muslim, Arab ...
>>> Canadian" and "Muslim, Arab,...". I hope that this isn't a true
>>> reflection of his loyalties at crunch time.
There is nothing special about the order in which I list my "points of identity." I believe that my identity is a mix of all the above because it simply the way it is! It's me. Don't read too much into it :-)
As for crunch time loyalties, I completely believe that my loyalty to my country is deeply rooted in my loyalty to my religion; Canada is a great country that embraced me and my family and opened to us the road to endless possibilities in a free dignifying environment. Returning the favor in any way short of complete loyalty is not Islamic because it is not even honorable!
Posted by: AhmedT | 2006-06-13 7:32:47 PM
Hypothetically speaking, if Canada goes to war with Saudi Arabia and bombs Mecca and Al-Kabaa, are you going to be Loyal to Canada or Islam?
If you MUST choose between Canada or Islam, which will you choose?
Posted by: Canadian | 2006-06-13 7:57:30 PM
Being no stranger to Islam culture ( next door neighbors on each side ) and being in the insurance business for 30 years, I find it terrifyingly interesting that the female part of the family to the east of me have suddenly covered up ( burkas ). I'd ask them if they're terrorists if I thought I could ever get an honest answer from any one of them.
As for the reports of terror suspects in Toronto being beaten -- You can believe it if you want - I don't.
Posted by: MILO | 2006-06-13 8:13:32 PM
If they have gone fundamentalist with that Palestinian death cult wahabist version, if you ask them and their brothers see you asking them, their brothers would have to take them out. And I do not mean on a date.
And the terrorists always make up stories about what is happenning or not happenning to the terrorists in prison. If you recall, there were reports that a quran has been torn up and tossed into a toilet, when it was in fact false. It turned out that the prisoner had done that just to make the false complaint, because they knew just how riled up their people would get.
(And why do Christians not get all twisted when Saudi Arabi burns all the other holy books, that are not qurans? That always puzzles me.)
You see, in prison, they still see themselves as more righteous than everyone else on the planet. Placing their islamofacist terrorist butts in prison, to them, is just infidels being infidels.
In relation to those who have made Canada home. It behoves them to ask themselves whether they really want to stay living in freedom. If they do not, then they may want to consider facilitating their emmigration to a host country, or their homeland, where they are free to be as submissive as they want, without raising terrorists to kill the people who have hosted them for so many years. If they still choose freedom, then it behooves them to redefine their religion in terms that is in sincronisity with the western values of freedom as have many other people.
Canada is a great place to live, but it may not be suitable for everyone.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-06-14 12:06:37 AM
Any discussion of Islam should involve these facts about the doctrine of Islam as stated in the Koran:
1. "Jihad" takes a "greater" form as the struggle within oneself to adhere to right belief; "lesser Jihad" is the battle to wage violent struggle against all "unbelievers" (non-Moslems) until the unbelievers either convert to Islam or pay a tax (usually, historically, that tax was 80-150% of a non-believer's wealth and was clearly designed to force them to "convert" in order to exist). All Moslems are supposed to wage both types of Jihad, those who do not, are not deemed as worthy and will not receive the same awards from their god "Allah" as those who do wage both Jihads.
2. The doctrine of "Al-Taqqiye" states that a Moslem should not lie to another Moslem, but may
speak lies to non-Moslems and that any lie, or any swearing of a false oath, even the denial of their god "allah" is unacceptable if such a lie is used to protect a Moslem in danger or to "promote Islam."
3. The doctrine of "Abrogation" is the rendering of earlier verses in their holy book "Koran" to be null and void in place of latter verses. Thus, when Moslems seek to justify their religion as peaceful they will quote verses in the Koran which appear to be so. However, these verses (about 125 of them) were "abrogated" over 1,300 years ago and the later hostile and aggressive verses calling for the destruction of "unbelievers" are the ones which are regarded as relevant. It is important to understand that this is not just a modern trend: in Islam, Mohammed took 23 years fashioning his belief system and Moslems believe the later verses are, therefore, an "improvement" upon the earlier verses, and that the later verses are the ultimate "truth" which cannot be changed.
I recommend the following website Despite the title, it appears to be a scholarly, balanced, highly detailed discussion, quoting extensively from Moslem sources.
Islam, as a doctrine, rather than "Islamic terrorism" is not compatible with my belief system and I think it unlikely to be so with many readers of this site. It is important to know what Moslems mean, as well as what they say because apparently, unlike the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland, they do not subscribe to the philosophy of "I say what I mean and I mean what I say." I hope this comment helps and if anyone disagrees or can add to my explanations, well... it is still, just, a free country!
Posted by: Centurion | 2006-06-14 2:36:45 AM
The web site discussing doctrines of Islam is called www.islamundressed.com Sorry for the blip, I am not very accustomed to my computer yet.
Posted by: Centurion | 2006-06-14 2:41:48 AM
>>>If you MUST choose between Canada or Islam, which will you choose?
This kind of question is very tricky and in my opinion unfair because its like asking me: If you had to choose between one of your two kids which one will it be (I actually do have two kids by the way :-) ).
Islam is my religion and Canada is the place that gave me hope and opportunity. I love both and have deep emotions towards both, but if I have to give an answer I'd say that I'd pick neither because as you may have been able to tell, I'm not an "armed conflict" type of guy. I believe that there are other ways that humans could use to resolve their issues (in a prefect world, which is not gonna happen for sure).
Posted by: AhmedT | 2006-06-15 3:05:06 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.