Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Shameless Self-Promotion | Main | More wisdom on Communist China from the Great White North »

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

RightGirl, that's enough

I don't like doing this, but I feel I have no choice but to call out RightGirl.  This has simply gone too far.

I have no choice but to ask her: how much does she really know Islam, as she so arrogantly claims to do?  How many Muslims does she actually know?

Does she know any from the Sufi tradition, a Muslim tradition that is more than a millenium old?  A tradition that patently rejects injecting its faith violently into the political realm?  A tradition eight centuries older than the nutty Wahabbism she (rightly) fears?  A tradition ten centuries older than the dangerous Khomeinism she (also rightly) fears?

Does she now any Uighurs - Muslims from occupied East Turkestan, a civilization two millenia old that adopted Sufi Islam in the ninth century?  Has she even heard of Uighurs or East Turkestan?  Or did she fall for the Communist lies about "Xinjiang"?

I have (correction: I have heard of the Uighurs - the original was a bit vague, sorry).  I've had the privilege of working with them to help form voices for their people: the East Turkestan Government in Exile, and the East Turkestan National Freedom Center (I'm Vice President of the latter, so feel free to consider me biased on this subject - I admit it freely).  I have watched them stand up for Abdul Rahman and other Christians in Afghanistan, categorically reject violence of any kind, and call to account the rabble-rousers who would spill blood over the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

For all of their efforts, their reward is to be either ignored or lumped in with the very terrorists they have scorned, courtesy of bloggers like RightGirl who should know better.

If she had presented her views as "Wahabbism must be stopped" or "Khomeinism must be stopped" or even "radical Islam" must be stopped, this wouldn't be an argument, and I wouldn't be posting this.  Sure, RightGirl would still be facing some vituperative criticism, but none of it would be justified.

While I cannot peer into RG's Inbox, I'm all but certain much of it is still unjustified; I'm guessing she has received a bunch of jihad apologias, threats, and other nonsense.  Sadly, she and they seem to agree on Islam; that only those who kill for it are true Muslims.

I know different, and what's more, I know many, many Muslims who know different, too.  What's more, and what has me so upset, is that - contrary to popular belief - they are shouting it from the cyber-rooftops, but no one is hearing them.

I hope RG sees this and reasses.  I pray she recognizes Islam is far more complex than she realized.  I hope she becomes more aware of just who the enemy is (the Wahabbists, the Ba'athists, the Khomeinists, and their mutual sponsor: the Chinese Communist Party) and targets her talents accordingly.

Posted by D.J. McGuire on August 1, 2006 in Canadian Politics, International Affairs, Religion, Weblogs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference RightGirl, that's enough:


honor kill, amputate limbs, stone to death, behead, etc a million more times

call conoleezz a monkey, call jews sons of apes and pigs, now call egypts pres a pig(below)



Aug. 1, 2006 17:00 | Updated Aug. 1, 2006 17:42
Palestinians dub Egypt's president a 'pig'

More than 2,000 Palestinians denounced moderate Arab leaders in a march through Ramallah in support of Hizbullah on Tuesday.

"Mubarak is a pig," protesters chanted, a reference to the Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, who criticized Hizbullah in the first days of battles between the group and the Israeli army.

The protesters also accused Jordan's King Abdullah of being a "collaborator of the Zionists and the Americans."

"These days are days of Arab resurrection and days of humiliation for the Israeli military, the military that couldn't proceed (move ahead) into Lebanese land," said Hani Hassan, a leading member of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party.

Moderate Arab leaders have been denounced for not taking a more vocal role in support of Hizbullah.

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-08-01 8:54:27 AM

The worst racists in the world click on the link for the monkey cartoon BUT we wont be seeing worldwide lunatics raging in the strees against it


Above and beyond the steady anti-American hatred promoted by the Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders for years, they seem to have a special penchant for hating Condoleezza Rice. Some of the attacks have included expressions of racial hatred, as in an article this week referring to Rice as a "raven" and a previous article that referred to her as "the colored... the dark skinned... the black lady." [see PMW Bulletin]

In another racist article attacking Condolezza Rice, the PA daily referred to her as the ”black woman” [three times], the “black spinster” and continues that he even considered the term “black widow” but rejected it. Her father is called the "black clergyman” [who filled her head with Bible stories] and Colin Powell is the “black man”, the “black gentleman” and even the “brave and moderate black.”

All appeared in the official PA daily, then controlled by Arafat, today under Mahmoud Abbas.

This week a cartoon mocked her hope for the birth of a new Middle East by drawing Rice pregnant with a monkey.


Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-08-01 8:59:04 AM

as the arabs murder 100,000 blacks in sudan and no lefties or muslim refuse rage in the streets

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-08-01 9:01:51 AM

biggest problem inthe world is to stop this outrageous muslim birthrate all over the world including canada

note- all those muslims in france did not immigrate - they were born out of the trojan horse

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-08-01 9:04:45 AM

Mr. McGuire, that some have perverted Islam and made it 'complex' changes the fact that Mohammed's Islam is very simple and that the Salafi version is truer to the prophet's religion not one iota.

As long as Islam exists there will be true followers of Mohammed, such as Osama bin Ladin, and the Koran will be there to show the way.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 9:07:48 AM

"Muslims from occupied East Turkestan"

where where do you live muslim appeaser/or really a muslim ali mcguire? as one of the occupiers in occupied canada?

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-08-01 9:11:39 AM

The Arab League denounced Hezbollah's actions, Woodbridge. Some of those africans being murdered by arabs in the Sudan are themselves muslim, so if you want to get rid of muslisms, what's your problem with that? I'm against it, because I don't think those africans should be being murdered.

If you want anyone to place any value on your comments, Woodbridge, you might like to avoid labelling everyone in this debate who does not agree with you a muslim.

And Speller, that fact that there are moderate Sufis, and moderate Kurds, and moderate muslims of many stripes does very much change the situation, much as the moderation of Christianity during the reformation and elightenment changed the danger that it presented to the progress of western civilization.

The enemy is indeed, as Mr. McGuire points out, the likes of the Wahabbists, the Ba'athists, the Khomeinists &c. If we do not focus on them, and are distracted by peripheral matters, then don't be surprised if Sun Tzu smacks us down.

You are afraid, Speller, and you are looking for a simple way out. There isn't one.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 9:23:51 AM

I have not read all of RG's ideas, but I do make this point to you, Mr. McGuire. You may know about Sufism and Uighurs and nice Muslims in your neighborhood. But are they significant? You can find nice people in almost any human group, probably even the Crips and the Bloods. But does that make a difference? If we are in the early stages of civilizational war --which I believe we are-- then, the existence of some exceptions is not that important. In fact, given the extreme anxiety which even rightwing Westerners have learned to feel when faced with the idea of roundly condemning 1) a religion that is 2) mostly made up of brown poeople, I am not surprised that you find this hard to take. Plus, you're Canadian!

RG might be vulgar or hard-edged but perhaps she is reacting with frustration to the compulsive name-avoidance game which plagues the West: war on "terror", "islamofacism", etc. Islam has always been, from day one of Muhammed, an expansionist theocracy. Given the chance, that is how it will act, nice guys like Sufis, Uiguhurs, and Sadeq the teacher. Our enemy is Islam.

Posted by: EssEm | 2006-08-01 9:24:55 AM

Do I know Muslims, DJ? Oh yes. Some of them Biblically! Some of them Biblically, and not by choice (i.e. first time I met an Iranian, if you could call it "met"). I have known Muslims from all over the world, including those born here. I was even engaged to one, albeit for a brief period of time. Some were religious, some secular. I thought I covered my pedigree early on, yet still you ask if I've ever known any.

I first heard the word Mujahideen when I had no idea what it meant. As far as I knew, the kindly Lebanese man was just like any other immigrant I came into contact with - nothing special about him. Same with the Afghan with the piercing blue eyes and scars all over his body from fighting "for his country". Or the Turkish exile who was like a grandpa to me, but who had to leave Turkey when it was "secular". I'm sure he'd be welcomed back today.

Tell me, DJ, have you ever known a Mujahid? Have you ever known a terrorist? Because if you haven't, then I must ask you - do you really know Islam?


Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-08-01 9:30:32 AM

Those who knew the London Tube bombers stated they thought these young men we moderates and had no idea that they were entertaining extreme action.

Mohammed would have approved. What these homegrown Jihadis did was sanctioned by the Koran.

As long as Mohammed is the one and only prophet of Islam(submission) and the Koran and Hadiths are available to devotees we will have Islamic terrorism.

For now, they use mere explosives and small arms in our midst, they would like to get more potent weapons to use. Time and lots of apologists are on their side.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 9:32:25 AM


For what it's worth, and because I think it's important to make clear, I don't consider RG "vulgar." I think she's wrong, and in expressing her incorrect views, she (unknowingly) insulted my friends. If I thought her "vulgar" or otherwise dark-hearted, I would be sad, but not nearly so hurt and angry.


Actually, I live in the United States of America, and I'm Roman Catholic. Still, I find it remarkable that you completely ignored my comments on Wahabbists, Khomeinists (that would be the Iranian Mullahs AND Hezbollah), and Ba'athists.

Take heed, Woodbridge, as you waste your energy with all of Islam, you may vanquish the above enemies, but the author of all evil (the Chinese Communist Party) will find new ones (Mugabe, Castro, Chavez, Lukashenko, and perhaps even Putin) to subjugate the Western world - and you won't see it coming.

Rest assured, I will.

Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-08-01 9:33:24 AM

You are asking the wrong question, RG. If you want to talk about the Mujahid, you will be making sense. If you disregard even the basic notions of set theory, in this case namely that not all muslisms are Mujahid, then you are not doing your perspective justice.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 9:34:54 AM

All Muslims are potential Mujahid.

Jihad is the 6th pillar of Islam. It is required of all Muslims as surely as the Hajj.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 9:38:32 AM

All humans are potential murderers, Speller. Some sects support murder. It is not the case that all humans support those sects.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 9:44:33 AM

Jihad is the 6th pillar of Islam. It is required of all Muslims.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 9:50:16 AM

Once again, we get back to the point of on what authority do the Mujahadin act?

I read somewhere in the last few days in an interview with a Hizb'allah leader that his fighters knew what they had to do because they were trained to do this since they were young boys.

So, the question that follows that statement is ... which young boys were deemed worthy of being a jihadist and which were allowed to become, for want of a better term, moderate Muslims?

Was it just the ugly young boys who would never be attractive to women anyway ... or were they just mentally deficient boys whose talents lay in reciting the entire Qur'an?

Were the elders sending the young boys to a certain death so they could have up to four women as wives for themselves? Or do the text ensure the male/female ratio be around one to four because killing and being killed was an explicit religious duty, carried out to emulate the prophet and carry out his commands?

Now, onto questions moderate Muslims some of their brothers.

Why do people in middle eastern countries seem to believe anger equals power? If they have a list of so many things they consider unclean, why is it their sanitary standards are so much lower than that in western countries? Why is an ability to lie considered to be an expected attribute?

The answers can only be found if the questions are asked.

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-01 9:53:17 AM

Mr McGuire, do you need a masters in ursology merely to recognise that bears can attack humans?

Sufis, those gentle Sufis?

Did you not realise that the chief planner of the Beslan massacre was a "Sufi".

And even if Sufism was non-violent ( which it isn't), what differece would it make seeings Sufis aren't considered real Muslims?

Are you to tell me that a marginal cult, with its origins in Hindusim, a cult rejected by the vast majority of Muslims, constitutes proof that Islam is peaceful?

What curious logic.

Read the history of the Arab conquests of North Africa as recounted by ARAB historians. If the violence doesn't make your hair stand on end it's because you haven't any.

Read "Classical Islam's" poets....the ones that mock Mohammed and sing the praises of wine, the ones that turn out, after a bit of fact-checking, to be Persian.

Then there's the spin about Islam's contributions to science and mathematics.

You need that *zero* (Vedic origin)...if only to count the loot!

And the fact the Arabs conquered Constantinople using "Greek Fire" proves their talent for chemistry!

And no one ever say anything nice about Byzantium these days.

The violent confiscation of someone else's intellectual property is quite different from the creation and gestation of such property, Mr McGuire.

Many Muslims are peaceful. Yes, many are.

Then again, Charles Manson was generous with his cash, and many Hell's Angels do charity work, distributing free toys to underprivileged "little children".

Just fills your eyes with tears!

Exploring Islam's "truths" is a bit like probing Jupiter's atmosphere in an effort to find a solid core; you'll search forever because despite the planet's gargantuan size it is, in the end, nothing but a HUGE BALL OF GAS.

At 48, and after years of reading up on the subject, I've no more time to waste.....

Sick of it...

Posted by: John Palubiski | 2006-08-01 10:04:42 AM


I don't remember you being so elaborative on the pedigree, but if I missed it early on (and I'm suspecting I did) I apologize for that oversight.

Secondly, I must confess, I have known no terrorist.

Thirdly, and perhaps I haven't been too clear on this, I am not refuting that certain sects within Islam are dangerous. I have mentioned two already and repeatedly: Wahabbism and Khomeinism. Your Iranian, um, "acquaintance" was likely from the latter sect.

What I was trying to get across (and still am) is that there are many Muslims who do not consider wither Wahabbism or Khomeinism to be true Islam. In fact, the Sufi would take tremendous issue with Speller's assertion the Salafi Islam is truer to Mohammed's ideal. The Sufi even read "jihad" differently (they see it as a personal, struggle to be faithful, not a violent war against non-believers).

Again, I'm not saying all Muslims are Sufi, nor am I saying Islam doesn't have pieces that are preternaturally violent. It does. All I'm saying is the violent folks are not all of Islam; they may not even be the majority of Islam.

That's the real problem: with the overwhelming majority of the Muslim population still trapped under tyranny, we really don't know what most Muslims think. Even Set you free misses the point when he asks: "Why do people in middle eastern countries seem to believe anger equals power?" SYF, most "people in the middle east" still aren't allowed to have their own beliefs.

For me, that includes Palestine and Lebanon, "elections" aside (if the Lebanese military can't enter Hezbollah-controlled areas, why do we think the Electoral Commission had better luck?). IMHO, the only Muslim nations with true "republican forms of government" as we used to call it down here, are Albania (which is still helping us liberate Iraq) and Turkey (where the crypto-Islamist AKP hit the electoral jackpot when most of the established parties fell just under the MP threshold; FWIW, the AKP is deeply unliked in Turkey, and the word from National Review blogger TKS is that in the next election it will be sent to the cleaners).

Posted by: D.J. McGuire | 2006-08-01 10:10:39 AM

Albanian Muslims are dynamiting millenia old churchs in Macedonia under the watchful eyes of Canadian troops with blue helmets.

Albanian Muslims helped perpetrate this in WWII.



Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 10:23:39 AM

We Canadian conservatives have a saying "If it matters - measure it".

So I did. I've already posted how Muslims are the only life-affirming religious segment of society in Canada, based on their uniqutely non-suicidal fertility rate.

What I didn't know is that there is a metric assload of data out there which reflects quite favourably on Canada's Muslim population, including but not limited to areas such as education, drug abuse, bastard children, and entrepreneurship.

Indeed, one could make the argument there are other, less fertile segments of society which appear to be of lesser utility to Canada than the Muslims. In any case, it will be difficult to make the case of banning Islam without presenting something measurable, and with all due respect I doubt very much the data is favourable to your cause.

Posted by: Fizz | 2006-08-01 10:33:17 AM


Anger equals power in the middle east is an observation of a moderate Muslim who now lives in Netherlands.

On a scale of one to 10, he rated the Dutch at two, Scandanavians at one, Iranians at a hot 9 and most of the middle east at eight.

Speller touches on another point about how churches in Serbia and Macedonia are being destroyed.

There is a story that was widely reported which may open a few eyes. Last year, two young Muslim boys went swimming in a river their parents told them to say away from.

One boy drowned and the other boy said they were forced into the river when they were attacked by Serbian dogs. Understand, dogs are on the top 10 list of unclean things.

Based on the boy's story, the Bosnian mob went on a rampage destroying or damaging some 37 Orthodox churches, some of which were built in the 13th century.

When the UN observers questioned the boy, they discovered he had made up a lie. But, the damage was already done.

Anger is power. Just get angry and start destroying. Kill first and ask questions later. I'm not sure if any apologies or reparations were ever offered, but I seriously doubt it since apparently Allah made them do it.

I know people who lived in Serbia during the time when Muslims were considered innocent victims by the Bill Clinton administration in the US. Look it up. A great majority of actions by the US military were done in support of Muslim positions.

The eywitnessess tell me that among the Bosnian population were mujahadeed who had recently arrived from Afghanistan, where they had fought the Soviets.

Anger does not solve their problem. It only makes them angrier.

Yet, somehow, anger is justified because there is a constant state of fighting some boogeyman just around the corner trying to oppress them.

While on the topic of Serbia ... a couple of months ago, the Canadian under-20 soccer team played an exhibition game in Edmonton.

The surname of the Canadian goaltender was clearly Serbian, yet his first name was clearly Muslim. It made about much sense as somebody who was named Jacques Singh.

I teased my Serbian friend about this strange combination. He told me there were plenty of boys like that within his community, people who were Christian and were at some point in history given the choice: ‘Choose Allah or die.'

How much patience can anybody be expected to have with these types of proven tactics?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-01 10:54:46 AM

Regarding the way the Arabs denote black people.

Well, they, who do that, are racists. They simply have no qualms about it!

And because they have no qualms about it, people are afraid that they simply cannot stop them from being racists, so why bother?

It is the same olf disgusting attitude as was fostered by Hitler, and with Hitler, (I mean, along with the Arabs) in WWII.

The very relatives of those who made the partnership, between the germans and the Arabs, gave birth to the next generations of terrorists. These are the one and the same people whom the Israelis are dealing with, in the terrorist organizations!

And that is why the holocaust denial. They want people to think that it never happenned, so they can immunize people against the fears that doing a holocaust of the Jews, is as evil as it is. They want to make truth, what Hitler said, when he said, no one remembers other Holocausts.

And, for example, who remembers the Holocaust of the Hindus?

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-01 11:19:30 AM


Did you not once say that there was only one Holocaust ... and that was the atrocity committed by Hitler?

Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-01 11:23:29 AM

Those who knew the London Tube bombers stated they thought these young men we moderates and had no idea that they were entertaining extreme action.

Mohammed would have approved. What these homegrown Jihadis did was sanctioned by the Koran.

As long as Mohammed is the one and only prophet of Islam(submission) and the Koran and Hadiths are available to devotees we will have Islamic terrorism.

For now, they use mere explosives and small arms in our midst, they would like to get more potent weapons to use. Time and lots of apologists are on their side.

Do we want to drain the swamp? The swamp is Islam itself.
Yes there are good little fish in the swamp. The crocodiles feed on the fish and grow larger and stronger. The fish need to evolve, grow legs, and leave the swamp for solid land.

Jihad is the 6th pillar of Islam. It is required of all Muslims.

Just as in many Christians churches every Sunday, the minister calls the faithful to got into the field and evangelize, so do the imams call every Friday for the Mohammedan's to evangelize.

The word for evangelize in Islam is 'Jihad'.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 11:38:05 AM


" What's more, and what has me so upset, is that - contrary to popular belief - they are shouting it from the cyber-rooftops, but no one is hearing them."

With all due respect, are you freakin' kidding me?
"Shouting from cyber rooftops," if you'll allow my interpetation would mean a really big anti-terrorism protest, attended or collectively voiced in some forum by many Muslims, somewhere in the world. Okay, where? Please, other then your friends, who I'm sure are all good, tolerant, God-fearing Muslims, explain where this shouting is coming from -- muffled or not.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world, most I assume of the non-terrorists capacity. Surly 50,000 or even 20,000 in a given place could have found some time to protest the bastardization of their religion after, say, Bali, Mumbai, London, Madrid, Chechnya, umm how 'bout Sept. 11, just to name a few big, non-Israeli, ones off the top.

If 200,000 sniveling, ignorant Americans can exercise their free rights to protest on a reoccurring basis the very nation that protects them, then is it too much to ask that even a percent of a percent of Muslims can come together "on the rooftops" to demand an end to radical Islam?

And you say this is happening? Please. I respect what you are doing your part to bring to light one of the world's most evil regimes in China, but, sadly, you greatly overstate the Muslim community's interest for opposing the blackest scars on their religion and culture. They community as a whole may not have any stomach for picking up AK-47s, but they're for the most part completely indifferent to those that want to. And it is that Muslim indifference that is our biggest impediment to defeating radical Islam.

Posted by: Stopthetrain | 2006-08-01 12:17:07 PM

Those who indiscriminately target non-combatant muslims remind me of Hezbollah indiscriminately targeting non-combatant citizens.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 12:25:08 PM

I reread your post, and it's clearer that you meant the opposing voices are internet-based. My points still stand. In fact they're enhanced. If the cyberworld is filling to the brim with these voices, surly some of that should spill over to the streets, no? If you're right, the web would be used as a tool to organize and stage demonstrations against radical Islam in the same way it's used to recruit anarchists, communists, and anti-Semites to attend the entirely opposite, hateful demonstrations against Israel and the U.S. It isn't. And on this point, you are wrong.

Posted by: Stopthetrain | 2006-08-01 12:28:43 PM

Jihad is the 6th pillar of Islam. It is required of all Muslims.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 12:29:16 PM

Your record's stuck, Speller.

Here's a couple cyber-links, StopTheTrain:

The Free Muslisms Coalition:

Muslims Against Terrorism:

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 12:37:23 PM

S'matter, Vito, did I catch you asserting a logical fallacy on the other thread?

Jihad is the 6th pillar of Islam. It is required of all Muslims.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 12:40:53 PM

No Speller, it is you who comitted the fallacy, and now you have been ungracious by interrupting this thread with your error there, and your record's still stuck.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 12:54:57 PM

Where are the disavowals from 'moderates' of the verses enjoining them to Jihad?

There aren't any disavowals from 'moderates'.

You, Vito, claim there are 'moderates' in Isalm. I say there aren't.

You give links to a number of 'moderate Muslim' sites on the other thread.

The Free Muslisms Coalition:

Muslims Against Terrorism:

Where are the disavowals of the verses in the Koran and Hadith which incite terrorist to Jihad?

There aren't any disavowals and there aren't any 'moderates'.

Like you, Vito, they just play with words.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 1:04:33 PM

I like the name of one of your sites, Vito,
"Free Muslim", heh.

Islam means submission and a Muslim is 'one who submits'.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 1:08:54 PM

I'm done with you, Speller. You're the kind of person who will keep arguing with the door long after the horse has left the barn. I shan't bother the good folks here at the Shotgun by further attempting to enlighten you, you are beyond hope.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 1:09:55 PM

I have hope for you, Vito.
You would not like what I hope for you.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 1:11:59 PM

While no doubt the London bombing was in some part motivated by Islam the target was ethnically based; in other words white people. Over 70% of the fatalities were whites.

Mohammad Sidique Khan:

"Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of *my people* we will not stop this fight.

We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."


He confesses it's not his God that has been affronted but his people. Similarly the alleged Toronto 17 or 19 or whatever rallied support at a Mississauga mosque by claiming white Canuck soldiers (are there any other kind?) were raping Afghani women. Again the issue is my people, not my God.

And finally Bali.

"Any white person is a target."


Posted by: DJ | 2006-08-01 1:19:32 PM

DJ, you take RG to task for her proposal to ban Islam, yet you offer no suggested solution to the problem yourself. Personally I agree that there are different variations of Islam practice and that not all Muslims are engaged in the present war in any form. I also agree that the biggest danger comes from wahabbism (funded by our ally Saudi Arabia no less) which isn't really different from what you called khomeinism. Considering that it is mainly this type being exported around the world, preached in mosques built with Saudi money, and is being taught in schools throughout most of the Muslim world, how do you propose dealing with this threat. Furthermore what would be the solution to the virulent anti-Semitism that one finds on a daily basis in Muslim media and that is being taught in their schools even in countries not yet controlled by wahabbism? Would you please explain how all this can be reversed.

I admit having difficulty with your statement about great numbers of Muslims voicing opposition to this hatred and violence. I do not doubt your sincerity in this matter, but I ask again why these people remain so invisible. The many Muslim demonstrations throughout the West clearly do not suggest moderation. So why are all these other not organizing conter-demonstrations? Why is it that the Muslim community throughout the West has a track record of not cooperating with security authorities?

So perhaps you could expand on a solution different from RG's suggestion.

Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-01 1:26:35 PM

London was a coordinated attack, DJ, with more than one attacker, with one Mosque as the nexus.

The Toronto conspirators weren't Afghani and most Muslims are Caucasians, although they are notably brown.

What brings these malcontents together and makes them think there is a payoff for their extreme actions?

I doubt these things would happen without an extreme ideology like Islam.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-01 1:33:05 PM

mcgwire on steroidfs said "Actually, I live in the United States of America"

same question no difference as you used the phrase"their occupied land"

what right do you have to use the phrase "occupied land" anywhere when you yourself are an occupier of land the euros seized from the true owners of the land who owned it for thousands of years?

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-08-01 1:36:00 PM

Set You Free,

I suppose there are a few people out there, who may have already told you, that you have an uncanny ability in twisting what was once said, to suit your self.

First, in terms of attrocities, the Jewish (READ JEWISH) Holocaust, was the most attrocious Holocaust, at the time it was commited. Sure, there were and have been other genocides, and all equally as horrid in terms of human sufferring, but none quite as systematic as was the Jewish Holocaust.

And, I also recall telling you that Jewish people prefer to refer to the Jewish Holocaust, as HaShoah, or just, The Shoah.

You want to open a can of worms, OK, be my guest. But first, you go make a chart, and opperationalize all the activities, as performed in each and every genocide, for the past, oh let us say, 1,500 years, and then perhaps we can have a discussion on which is worse, this evil or that evil.

Call it, your own personal educational exploratory about Holocausts/genocides if you will. Include, as part of your assignment, the framework, from bureacracy to methodology of the events, numbered numerically as well as chronologically. Be specific, and describe facts, including process and equipment used to conduct the attrocity.

Let me know when you are done. I'll expect complete publication, through this blog, of your findings, when your task has been completed.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-01 1:44:01 PM


Caucasus is a categorization of skull shape, that has been used, or rather abused, as a means of identifying people by the colour of their skin, in today's terms, rather than what it was originally used to denote.

The attack was not along caucasus lines, in the abused sense of the term, but religio-ethnio-lineal lines.

In relation to whether they made the attacks in locations, where they would be least likely to injure folks of their own persuasion, that may well be a factor that lead to the selection of the locations they attacked.

Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-01 1:52:15 PM

I think, Alain, there are two things that can be done. Firstly, we continue the general course of engagement and banishment, via both diplomatic and military channels internationally, and police and justice measures here at home.

Secondly, we continue the general course of spreading the benefits of western civilization, which most people in third-world counteries desire.

Our objective is to innoculate people with the viral form of the sorts of things that we have benefited from since the reformation and the enlightenment: freedom, democracy, education, technology, &c. We want to win their hearts and minds, not blow them out.

We want to work though the problems faced by this new century, just as we worked through the problems of the last century. But we would like to do better than 150,000,000 million dead from totalitarianism. So blowing people up left, right, and center won't help.

There is nothing trivial about this problem. There's no silver bullet. Many of the best minds in the world are working on various approaches. Steady on, the sky is not falling.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 1:53:56 PM

I would like to read this yelling from the cyber rooftops. Do you have any english links?

John M Reynolds

Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-08-01 2:13:47 PM

Uh DJ......I am calling you out on your lack of knowledge of Islam.....Are you aware that Sufism has as much to do with Islam as it does pagan roots??

Are you aware that Sufism is not recognized by Orthodox Islam and indeed Sufis have been brutally persecuted for centuries by regular Sunni Islam!!

Indeed, are you even aware, that in spite of Sufism being watered down from regular Islam, that the Sufis have their own brutal tradition of mass murder also??

I didn't think so...DJ, you shouldn't cast stones from where you sit....you are plainly ignorant about what constitutes Orthodox Islam...

Again, no one is arguing that their are decent muslim sects....but what we are saying is that pure and unfiltered Islam is evil to its core....

Thankfully, many muslims do not follow pure islam.....

Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-01 3:06:10 PM

There's a couple links in my 12:37 PM comment today, JMR:

The Free Muslisms Coalition:

Muslims Against Terrorism:

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 3:10:11 PM

And I'll agree that D.J. does great work in exposing the odious Communist Chinese....of course Islam is not our only foe....Liberalism, Islam and Communism are all are foes...

What we are saying is that DJ is hopelessly ignorant on what Islam really is........NO ONE is arguing their are decent muslims...we are ARGUING that thier is no such thing as DECENT ISLAM practiced in a Orthodox fashion as stipulated by Muhammed...

Just as their are no such things as decent Marxism or Nazism....the same goes for Islam...

Please for goodness sake learn what a dichotomy is......Islam bad....Not all Muslims bad....


Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-08-01 3:13:38 PM

Yes, Albertanator, that's the point, just about everbody agrees. Perhaps a metaphor. I am not affiliated with or recognized by the Hells Angels. Therefore, I am not responsible for their behaviour, independent of whether or not we both call ourselves Canadians. If you want to fight the Hells Angels (and I think we should), but instead you fight me, then you are allocating your resources poorly.

Posted by: Vitruvius | 2006-08-01 3:16:50 PM


Three of the four bombers were British nationals of Pakistani descent. Pashtuns, a tribe that straddles the Afghan Pakistani border and is at war with Hindus in Kashmir.

12 of the 17 Toronto almost bombers were Pakistani/Bangladeshis. Same tribe.

Unquestionably the ideology[there is no moderate Muslim] is invoked, however, these people nor those in Bali were Caucasians [Arabs].

The London bombers could easily have targeted Sikhs or Hindus or Jamaican Christian [one bomber was a Jamaican], however, they did not. The Bali bombers could easily have targeted Asians, like the Japanese, in Bali, but they did not.

They specifically targeted whites.

Posted by: DJ | 2006-08-01 4:10:43 PM

Like to see some newspaper writer write a column about why since 1981 Muslim world population has increased from 750 million to 1.3 BILLION in just 25 years.

Not only in Palestine but in France too as most of those there were born of the trojan horse that immigrated there. And it is happening here too like the Canadian/Palestian/Lebanese mother of 5 new Muslims between 1 and 7 years old.

The biggest problem in the world is two-fold Muslims overbreeding themselves and then attacking whoever is next to them for more space.

This breeding rate is the basis of Islamo-fascism.

Yet I never heard Muslim overbreeding ever discussed in our lefty media, the so abortion friendly media when it comes to western people.

Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-08-01 4:22:15 PM

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist and a former Muslim and a former ?alestinian discloses that within iSLAM, rest assured there are no divisions; these are for the consumption of the infidel, to confuse.

There is only one iSLAM, the "religion" started by a murderer, pedophile, rapist, looter, pillager, liar...whom Muslims consider the "perfect man." Again, Muslims consider the example set by Muhammad as the "perfect" one. That they don't do this at the bakery when buying bread and are good people is not coz of iSLAM, but in spite of it.

iSLAM is the voice of Arab imperialism.

Posted by: wharold | 2006-08-01 4:27:56 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.