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:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8346191c969e2

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 2006-07-24 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 2006-07-26 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 2006-08-06 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 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 | 2006-07-24 11:59:53 PM

Posted by: Centurion | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 9:01:10 AM

AND YOUR BREATH SMELLS BAD DAWG

Posted by: Duke | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 12:29:25 PM

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

Posted by: Canadian | 2006-07-25 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 | 2006-07-25 12:35:32 PM

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

Posted by: Shawn | 2006-07-25 1:04:26 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Monday, July 24, 2006

Wrong

TrackBack

Comments