Muslim Terrorists and Moderates in Ottawa

The story broke yesterday with the arrest of two men, carefully unidentified, so carefuly in fact that simple information such as their ethnicity (information routinely given out in other arrests) was withheld - but that is perhaps a point for a future post.

Then today what was suspected by all, was proven to be true. The men accused are all of middle eastern descent and Muslim.

But again, for me, that fact is unimportant.

What is important is that one of the largest and most powerful Muslim organizations in this country the Muslim Canadian Congress is sounding out. However, the protestations of this group have not been in outrage at the RCMP or to claim racism or bigotry as has so often happened before in other places. Instead they have voiced their outrage against the ideology of Jihad. They have called for Muslims in Canada to stem this evil and to address this "serious problem among Canadian Muslim youth".

"Salma Siddiqui, the Muslim Canadian Congress vice-president said in a telephone interview that she was “livid and frustrated” that young Muslim men were still being seduced by the idea of fighting a holy war in the name of Islam.

“It has to stop,” she said."

Raheel Raza, also of the Muslim Canadian Congress went even further in this article when she admitted that...

"This is not something that comes as a total surprise . . . we have a problem,"

To add to the credibility of this group, to show that they are indeed the moderate western face of modern Islam in Canada, Muslim Canadian Congress has condemned the Ground Zero Mosque on the front page of their website saying...

“Many Muslims suspect that the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation, to thumb our noses at the 'infidel.' We believe the proposal has been made in bad faith and, in Islamic parlance, is creating 'fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making,' an act clearly forbidden in the Qur’an.”

For those that claim there are no moderate Muslims the words of Salma Siddiqui, Raheel Raza, and the Muslim Canadian Congress would seem to make a lie of that claim.

I should point out, that I do believe that Islamic fascism is a real and continuing problem. But regardless of that, as a rational individual I know that it is individuals that set their own beliefs, guide their own destinies and run their own lives. That simple knowledge will not allow me reasonably to condemn all Muslims as dangerous terrorists or Islamofascists any more than it is reasonable and proper to believe that every German, alive in the world between 1931 and 1945 was a Nazi.

Behind a Veil of Hypocrisy

There has been a lot of noise lately about banning burkas, and it is all wrong.

Most of the articles cite security concerns, or the fact that the burka is a medieval form of misogynistic discrimination. Or the claim is made that there is nothing in the Islamic religion that demands the burka to be worn, and that is used as a justification for prohibition.

All of these “reasons” are ridiculous, counterproductive and contrary to individual rights.

The security issue as presented is only an issue if the appropriate security agency does not validate that the person under the veil is in fact who they say they are. Most airports have private rooms where a female security agent can take the individual in question so that their identity can be confirmed against their passport photo.

In the event that the person under the burka refuses to be so identified then it is up to the security agent to stand by its reasonable request (and against the inevitable knee-jerk of political correctness and possible threats of violence) and deny that individual the privilege of boarding the aircraft, or gaining access into the country, whichever is the case.

Such a policy applied uniformly to any and all passengers or entrants, would soon become known and accepted by all. It is the unequal application of a weak policy or selective screening that exasperates and perpetuates the problem.

The complaint that the burka is discriminatory is a moot point. Although as a rights respecting society we should watch out for rights violations - the initiation of force or fraud - against anyone it is completely and utterly impossible to make a claim of it without proof.

If a woman in a burka were to complain to a police officer that she was being forced under threat of violence to wear a burka then in that case there would be something that could be done, using existing laws and procedures. With help she could remove herself from that abusive relationship and the person who is threatening her with harm could be charged. But without that sort of proof we must operate on the presumption that her actions are her own, and she has chosen to wear the burka. To do otherwise, and ban the garment, regardless of the good intentions or the misgivings of the majority (or even a vocal minority) would be idiotic, illiberal and heavy handed.

The third complaint is really not a reason at all but a fuzzy headed kind of logic to which predominately religious and conservative opponents cling when all their other arguments have been ignored. It is nothing less than the cry of the closeted racist… “But they don’t have to wear it so why don’t they just dress like normal people… They should have to.”

It isn’t the burka. The burka doesn’t make a woman a terrorist, its not a sign of oppression or abuse, and it doesn’t matter that it is not a necessity of the religion.

If you can not grasp these simple concepts imagine outlawing baggy pants because they made every kid a gang-banger, or jeans and a halter top because they signify abuse and degradation or imagine if crucifixes were prohibited just because there was nothing in the bible that said they aught to be worn…

Peace at any Cost

"Canada is supportive of it because there are no conflicts in the world that have been able to resolve themselves without any reconciliation and reintegration so we have indicated our support for that process."

Minister Canon is correct. but not in the way he believes he is.

Conflicts, or should I say wars, because war is where we are at, don't "resolve themselves". They are won or they are lost. Apartheid, the first "conflict" to have a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a war that the forces of freedom and equality won. Then they chose to engage the enemy in dialogue.

Just what are our politicians trying to reconcile with the Taliban? Do they so naievely believe that the Taliban and their fellow travellers are going to "renounce violence" when it has already gotten them so much?

The terrorists and Taliban have fought NATO to a virtual standstill. Why? Because NATO is not permitted to wage the kind of war that would see the Taliban defeated. NATO is becoming a UN light, hamstrung by feel good policies where the desire to reduce collateral damage is more important than winning the war. Could you imagine Churchill demanding that the bombing of Dresden be halted because of collateral damage?

What sort of negotiations would take place under this reconciliation commission? What concessions would the Taliban get in return for laying down their arms? Maybe they would only be able to stone adulterers every other day? Mondays Wednesdays and Fridays are kill an infidel day, but Tuesday Thursday and weekends are reserved for religious secularism? Girls schools are fair game for beatings and acid throwing but they promise not to kill homosexuals?

When the South Africans developed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission it was because they knew that there was some value, some good in the white South African culture. They knew that their country would be less able, less stable and less prosperous without the whites and their skill, knowledge and experience. So someone please tell me what value is there in anything that comes out of the Taliban's twisted ideology?

Nothing.

Stop this insanity now. Don't offer any deal, no capitulation no reconciliation.

Lets get back to work and fight this war like it really matters, because you know what... it does.

Because for every Taliban scumbag hiding in a cave there are 40 or 50 more psychopathic fascists watching the goings on in Afghanistan on the Internet in Saudi Arabia, Iran Pakistan and Indonesia waiting for us to fail...

There is a cost that must be paid for peace. That cost is nothing short of total war. It's time for us to get our peace at any cost.

Don't Just Let Them Speak, Let Them be Heard...

Canada and Canadians have missed a huge opportunity by banning Dr. Zakir Naik from speaking in person in Toronto at "The Journey of Faith Conference".

We should have let him come, more than that we should have put someone inside that conference to video the entire thing, every speech and every speaker.

Because maybe if Joe and Jill six-pack heard one of these people claim that "every Muslim should be a terrorist," or that it's okay to beat your wife - without leaving a physical mark of course (how very moderate of him) they would realize that this is an ideology of hate and fear and that every single person in that conference is a supporter implicitly or explicitly of the destruction of our way of life.

For those that would call me intolerant I say thank you. I have no desire to develop a tolerance for evil, or the cattle that follow it.

Gaza 2010 = Sarajevo 1914?

It is ridiculous that the world seems to be standing around watching as this shapes up. To think of a parallel, the Iranians sending an aid ship to Gaza is the equivalent of the Russians sending an “aid ship” to Cuba in October of 1962.

Iran has sworn to “wipe Israel off of the map”. Israel has sworn to defend herself, and that includes the blockade of Gaza.

With Israel standing alone and surrounded by her Muslim enemies, and the rest of the world playing the part of two of three monkeys - seeing and hearing no evil in the intent of those who would break the blockade – does someone really need to point out that Israel is a nuclear capable nation and Iran is pushing toward that goal (while Obama, America’s Nero – fiddles with his foreign policy)?

Israel’s enemies continue to push. They launch rockets, they threaten, they cajole and so far all Israel’s appeasement has done has been to embolden them. Israel’s patience is not infinite however and when push comes to shove they will strike back to save their lives.

This is the point we are going to reach sooner rather than later if the Iranian “aid ships” steam for Gaza. Israel will push back, there will be blood. The Muslim world will condemn. The UN will condemn out of one side of its mouth while calling for an “impartial investigation” out of the other. The new American administration will lower its eyes, kick as the dirt beneath its feet like a shamed child and remain silent.

At that point, abandoned by all her allies implicitly if not explicitly, what option does Israel have?

Surely Israel will launch an attack on Iran to prevent that theocratic totalitarian state from ever achieving nuclear status, and from that act of self-preservation the entire set of dominoes may fall.

This single event, this largely ignored calculated provocation of Israel by her sworn enemies has the possibility of being this millenniums "shot heard round the world"..

And so far all the world has done is scold the victim and praise the assassin.

Imagine...

"From this distance, it's easy to be sanctimonious about Israel's commando raid on the Turkish flotilla, and costless to be naive about the motives of those onboard.

Read the whole thing...

Not Neutral... Ambivalent. Not Compassionate... Evil

I will never donate another penny to the Red Cross.

The Red Cross' treatment of the Taliban in Afghanistan exemplifies the predominant philosophy of our age writ large. The Red Cross is exhibiting its altruistic roots, it is supporting people who would see it and every other vestige of "western society" completely destroyed. How wonderfully selfless.

Ayn Rand once said that "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." and she was right.

That answer to the Red Cross' implicit philosophy draws some fire from "compassionate humanists" though...

"The Red Cross is just being neutral" they say just like in WW2 when they dealt with German POW's in Prison camps.

That is a good point and I hadn't thought of it before but their assistance to the Taliban now is no different than their assistance to Nazi's in WW2.

I see now that the Red Cross is not immoral for doing this but rather that it is amoral. It is designed as an organization to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, good from evil. Which in my book puts it directly alongside the evil it is unable to recognize.

"But the Red Cross is just like Switzerland..." they cry "Neutral!"

But they miss a very important distinction between the Swiss neutrality and the Red Cross'.

The Swiss neither help nor hinder any side. They keep their hands to themselves in all matters. This isn't amoral, they have decided that it is in their self-interest as a nation to stay out of it all altogether.

The Red Cross is not neutral it is ambivalent. It doesn't care who it helps. It makes every one of the good guys fighting for the moral and right reasons, the exact same as every misogynistic, racist, ignorant, socially backward, religious fanatic and bugger Taliban on the battlefield.

In short, the Red Cross equates MMV winners, guys like Tpr Shane Dolmovic and our leaders, like General Hillier with the scum-bags who throw acid on schoolgirls and stone women to death for the crime of adultery when they have actually been raped.

There is a moral choice facing the Red Cross, it is as clear as white and black, and they are evil for failing to make that choice.

Then comes the next philosophical head fake...

"The Taliban were raised to believe what they do, their society is structured that way, their religion has taught them that they are right. So who are we to say what is moral? "

To answer a question of morality I would ask what is the purpose of existence and what position among all the positions of all religions, ideologies and cultures best upholds that purpose?

For me the purpose of existence is life, my life and my living of it. In other words living in a rationally self-interested way.

Now this does not mean living as a range of the moment hedonist. Tiger Woods was not operating in his self-interest when he was out whoring around, as evidenced by how much those actions have cost him personally and professionally.

Nor is it a blank cheque to treat people as sub-human, as disposable and worthless. After all it does not further my life to live in a society where I would need to treat every other person as a danger rather than a possible source of value to enhance and enrich my life.

It also doesn't benefit me to treat this life like a shadow of something more "beyond the grave". Reality and the facts of it all point to this being the only existence we are going to get. Dismissing reality is the first cardinal sin against living a good, long, successful and happy life.

It also means that altruistic sacrifice (the relinquishment of a greater benefit for a lesser one) is contrary to living in this life.*

* A note here, our soldiers do not sacrifice themselves for a lesser value. They have either made a conscious decision that what they are fighting for is worth the possibility of death or they have weighed the risks and believe themselves to be skilled enough to survive where others will not. Neither of these is sacrifice.

So to get back to the deciding of what is moral or not; using these few points and many others that it would take too long to list I can, and you can, determine what is moral and what isn't, and we should.

More than that I believe that this world would be much better off if people would use the standard of their own lives to determine their morality instead of accepting someone else's definition, ideology or superstition.

Like Rand said. "The moral principle to adopt is Judge and be prepared to be Judged."

Actions can not be separated from their results, no matter if you claim compassion, humanity or neutrality as your excuse. No matter if you are an individual or a multi-national organization.

I have judged the Red Cross by their actions and I find them to be immoral, and evil.

*H/T Chris

Don't Ever Forget

*

3 Months To Live

Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison in 2001 for taking part in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988, and was to serve at least 27 years behind bars.

However, he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer last year and doctors have said he has less than three months to live.

*

Well isn't that special. I wonder how much of that three months this terrorist mass murderer will spend laughing at the weakness of the west's version of "justice".