Share
-
Heaven On Earth
Canada’s Crime: Can’t be Iraq or Pro-Israel can it?
The New York Sun has a good editorial on what Canada did to deserve these planned bombings by Muslims.
New York Sun Staff Editorial
June 5, 2006The arrest of 17 residents of Canada with three tons of ammonium nitrate in a plot to attack targets in Ontario is a reminder of the nature of the enemy that America faces in the war on Islamist terrorists. Contrary to the beliefs of some on the American extreme left and extreme right, the terrorists aren’t simply reacting against the American-led war in Iraq or against America’s support for Israel.
Canada sent no troops to liberate Iraq. Our neighbor to the North so opposed the Iraq War that at least one American deserter fled there for safe harbor, as draft-dodgers did during the Vietnam War. And while Canada is mildly pro-Israel, and more so under its new conservative government, its arms sales to the Jewish state are peanuts compared to America’s, and at the United Nations on key votes it’s likely to abstain rather than join the America, Micronesia, and Palau in voting with Israel.
What the Islamic extremists oppose in Canada is neither its support for Israel nor its behavior in Iraq but the mere fact that it is not a country governed by Islamic law. An Associated Press dispatch on the bomb plot noted that Canada, with the America, Britain, Spain, and Australia, was listed by Osama Bin Laden as a “Christian” nation that should be a target for terrorism. Nothing short of dropping Christianity and converting to Islam will satisfy the Islamist terrorists.
What follows is this truth: the options this leaves Canada and other free nations are, in other words, either defeating their enemy or surrendering to it. Concessions short of surrender won’t satisfy the enemy, as the example of Canada demonstrates. Nor will a crackdown on immigration entirely solve the security problem for the West – it appears that many of those arrested over the weekend were Canadian-born.
More details will emerge as the case against these plotters progresses. The accused are entitled to a presumption of innocence. But this war has been going on for long enough now – dating back not only to September 11, 2001, but to the attacks on the USS Cole in 2000, the Dhahran Barracks in 1996, the World Trade Center in 1993, the United States Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979. And, some would argue, to the original Muslim invasion of Europe and the Christian Crusades that followed. Not all Muslims are enemies of Christendom any more than all Christians are enemies of Islam. But one can begin to discern patterns. Those who falsely see the source of Muslim rage solely in American policy can now consider the case of Canada.
People should go back and read some of the responses to 7-7. As J. R. Kerr-Ritchie, an anti-war historian wrote as recently as March 2006:
By far the most persuasive explanation for the London bombings links them to the war on Iraq. The British government has repeatedly denied this connection. The evidence to the contrary, however, is quite compelling. In response to 9/11, the United Kingdom has supported the global war on terror spearheaded by the United States. This has resulted in the death and maiming of thousands of Muslims, illegal detentions, prisoners of war abuses, desecration of Arab and Muslim life, and the persecution of innocent American and British citizens of the Islamic faith. According to Chatham House, an independent think-tank on foreign affairs, the events of 7/7 exemplify the problem that the United Kingdom is “riding as a pillion passenger with the United States in the war against terror” (Guardian, July 18, 2005, p. 1).
Note that Chatham House is hardly the kind of impartial source one might expect from the description “independent think-tank” and its report was not accidentally an attack on Blair. As for the laundry list of crimes, they obviously apply to a much greater extent to either Saddam or the Sunni terrorist insurgency. For latest revolting desacration of Shi’i Islam and crime against humanity, see here. For the reductio ad absurdum, a kind of Chomsky clown (no it’s not Michael Moore), see Ken Livingstone’s remarks.
The role of this notion in the anti-war movement is systematically expolited by Muslim demopaths: and the outrage an insistence by Muslim groups that English policy in Iraq be highlighted as a cause of the bombings. What we have here is a clear case of wishful thinking — if there is a logic to their violence, maybe we can avoid the violence by conceding — versus reality testing — any concession encourages further aggression, nothing short of capitulation will suffice. Canada clears up the ambiguities? Is anyone in the world of PCP listening?
While I’d agree that for people who drink so heavily from the cup of victimhood, no provocation is necessary, it has been reported by a Muslim Liberal MP for a Mississauga Ont. riding that one of the accused made statements at the local mosque alleging that Canadian troops in Afganistan were raping Afghan women. The MP says he complained about this person to the mosque’s board (and, may have, for all we know, reported the person as someone to watch to Canadian intelligence).
And I do believe Canada made Osama’s list some time ago for being in Afghanistan and also for the backing Canada gave Israel in 1948 vis recognition at the UN.
interesting. this is the kind of story that started the first crusade as well… and, via pallywood and al durah, the second intifada. in some senses, it doesn’t really matter what you do — “they” will find a way to indict you.
if anyone who voted for israel in 1948 is subject to terrorist bombings, then i’d say these guys are playing by rules that no one in his right mind would want to play by (or should i say, pretend they’re playing by).
there’s a great aesop’s fable on that one:
in avoiding everything that might provoke the muslim extremists, they end up becoming dhimmi.
Canada is asking itself how come they are growing their own young “terrorists”?
The British asked themselves the same questions. So the French, the Italians, the Swedes, the dutch etc etc. And perhps soon the Australians too.
One of the first things to comprehend is that the hatred of the infidel has nothing to do with any good, or wrongdoings for which we might feel guilt in our Imperialist past.
whenever liberals are confronted with islamic brutality the seek to find “reasons” in our past behaviour to ‘explain” these exterminationist actions.
There is one reason and one reason only.
we are hated and despised simply because we are kaffurs or in secular terms “untermensch”.
This is not just the mindset of radical Muslim terrorists but at the very core of Islam itself.
it is painful to understand our status of slaves to be preyed on by the superior muslim, so we frantically look for peaceful muslims who do not hate us. When we find such nice muslims, it gives succor, but we must understand that these fine muslims are NOT following the dictates of their religion.
They are in fact “sinners” to be reprimanded by the Mullahs and brought back into the fold.
The Saudi wahabists knew they would have to keep beating the western muslims to make sure they did not stray with all the temptations of western decadence and remember they were not on holiday in the west but on a mission to take over the land of the infidel.
So they spent billions on mosques to do just that. We foolishly allowed these centres of indoctriantion to be built on the name of multiculturism.
Those kids are the product of the indoctrination we have allowed to be preached theirein.
Although there are many kind moderate Muslims in western lands, there is no kind and moderated islam.
That is the root of all the problems.
response (in italics) to monsieur le chevalier (in regular):
One of the first things to comprehend is that the hatred of the infidel has nothing to do with any good, or wrongdoings for which we might feel guilt in our Imperialist past.
whenever liberals are confronted with islamic brutality the seek to find “reasons” in our past behaviour to ‘explain” these exterminationist actions.
you have touched on the key to masochistic omnipotence syndrome (MOS). If “they” are angry with us for what “we” did, then if we change what we do, apologize for what we did, then maybe we can resolve the problem. To imagine that an entirely different set of motives is at play, ones over which we have no influence — other than to accelerate the violence by trying to appease it — is a terrifying reality most people, most liberals, don’t want to even glimpse.
There is one reason and one reason only.
we are hated and despised simply because we are kaffurs or in secular terms “untermenschen”.
This is not just the mindset of radical Muslim terrorists but at the very core of Islam itself.
I don’t agree with you here. Muslims don’t at all times and in all places feel this hatred and contempt for the infidel. It’s rather under certain circumstances that this kind of behavior tends to come out. (Don’t get me wrong: I recognize the degree to which this kind of behavior is part of the Islamic system and condoned by it. It’s just that it’s not “all there is.”)
The reason that they hate and despise us so violently now has to do with the humiliations they feel at the hands of a cultural style (modernity, democracy) that produces such powerful forces that a tiny state of former dhimmi can take on seven Arab armies. The West is a huge humiliation for the Muslims; the Israelis intensify that humiliation a thousandfold; and globalization makes it impossible to ignore that humiliation. (The sense of global domination within reach as a result of western technology also spurs on the aggression.)
The rage, the vicious hatred, the paranoid megalomania that currently seems to be taking over in Islam surely has historic precedents, but is probably unprecedented in its size and scope and intensity. But it is not all there is to Islam.
it is painful to understand our status of slaves to be preyed on by the superior muslim, so we frantically look for peaceful muslims who do not hate us. When we find such nice muslims, it gives succor, but we must understand that these fine muslims are NOT following the dictates of their religion.
I wouldn’t say that. What I would say is that they are subject to that charge by Muslims who a) will use violence to get their way, b) have scriptural sources (Quran, Hadith, Legal treatises) to back them up, and c) are increasingly in charge of the public sphere in Islam. If it sounds to you like I’m quibbling, I’m not. There’s more to Islam than meets our eye. We are waking up to its presence under extremely ugly circumstances; we look back in history and see these kinds of dynamics repeatedly in play; and we tend to generalize from that.
They are in fact “sinners” to be reprimanded by the Mullahs and brought back into the fold.
I’ve posted on this phenomenon, citing David Cook.
The Saudi wahabists knew they would have to keep beating the western muslims to make sure they did not stray with all the temptations of western decadence and remember they were not on holiday in the west but on a mission to take over the land of the infidel.
So they spent billions on mosques to do just that. We foolishly allowed these centres of indoctriantion to be built on the name of multiculturism.
We continue to be foolish like that. Too polite.
Those kids are the product of the indoctrination we have allowed to be preached theirein.
Although there are many kinds of moderate Muslims in western lands, there is no kind and moderated islam.
That is the root of all the problems.
that’s one aspect of our problems. and a crucial one — the rest stem from our “cognitive deficiencies” (like our blind adherence to PCP).
can there be a genuinely peaceful islam? (ie one that comes neither from dominating or being too weak to dominate, but real tolerance…) i think so. it’s in all monotheistic systems at their best to wish your neighbor well, to be honest and compassionate. the doctrinal wars (god plays favorites at judgment day), the theocratic imperialisms, the claims of monopoly on salvation… they are all expressions of profound insecurities: my faith is right because it has might. in a sense the need to “administer justice” in the grotesque form of suicide attacks represents the ultimate lack of faith.
RL:
Canada didn’t merely vote in favour of recognizing Israel. According to my grandfather, who was on very close terms with a Canadian cabinet minister of the time (named Walter Harris), it was Canada’s rep to the UN who brought forward the motion.
But yes, for some personality disordered types, any pretext will do.