Thursday, June 08, 2006

Canadians Shocked At Terror Plot

Over at RCP is an article by Jack Kelly entitled, Canada's Tolerance is No Deterrent to Terrorism. I recommend reading it. I especially suggest that those who think pacifism makes a civilization safe to take a good look at the situation that has surfaced in Toronto.

Never mind that when we want lessons in pacifism and the outcomes of such a policy, all we need to do is look at Neville Chamberlain. This lesson comes from the here and now, not some past bygone day, one that the revisionists have tried to downplay for three decades now. As Mr. Kelly alludes to in his essay, the Canadians have the opportunity to see first hand that positioning itself against the Bush administration, does not exempt it from being the target of evil people that care nothing about Canada, or its citizenry.

But, whether or not eyes get opened will depend on whom you talk to. The left in that country (and in this one) will no doubt spin it to be Bush’s fault. They usually do. Try convincing a leftist that Islamic jihadists hate all of western civilization, not just Americans. It always comes back to George Bush and Iraq. Somehow, I can envision a conversation with a leftist twenty years from now and hearing GWB’s name, coupled with Iraq.

But to those with an objective mind, to those that can set politics aside, and to those that can see reality plainly, you can see that there is no respecter of persons in this dark and hate-filled movement. They have yet to bat an eye over killing fellow Muslims, what makes anyone think they would not look to hurt countries that have been critical of George Bush over the past few years? Western civilization is western civilization. And freedom is not conducive to their goals and objectives.


To think that being a critic of the American government somehow guarantees safe passage in the onslaught they wish to commit shows a deep lack of critical thinking skills, at the very least.

2 comments:

Gene said...

Kelly writes, "Most liberals here and abroad think Islamic terrorists exist primarily to cause embarrassment to the Bush administration." Has Kelly done an exhaustive statistical analysis of "liberals" before coming to this conclusion? Or is this just the usual claptrap? Being that Kelly references not a single article, post, statement, or piece of bathroom graffiti supporting his claim, I'll assume it's the latter.

The idea that anyone with a brain thinks that Islamic terrorists are commiting mass murder to "embarass" Bush leads me to believe that Kelly himself doesn't have one. How Bush-centric can you get? Most Americans remember Iranian hostages, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, Leon Klinghoffer, Lockerbie, the Khobar Towers bombing, the Cole, and the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. None of which had anything to do with a certain unpopular, lame-duck President who will be gone in 2 years. I think the terrorists' intent is to terrorize--they want to turn the populace into frightened slaves. If Bush gets embarassed, well, that helps their cause. But that doesn't MAKE it their cause.

And let's get into the meat of Kelly's argument (and yours), that Canada's opposition to the Bush Administration didn't protect if from the threat of Islamic terrorists. "For everyone who thought Canada could cower in a corner of the planet, unnoticed and unthreatened by evil men..." Kelly approvingly quotes a Canadian columnist. How exactly was Canada cowering? The RCMP broke up the plot! Kelly and other writers he quotes infer that Canada thought themselves safe from those bad, bad terroists because they hid behind Mother's skirts and didn't support the war in Iraq. The truth of the matter is that vigilant law enforcement brought about the arrest of 17 people possibly planning a major terrorist act. Where's the cowering?

Oh, the cowering is about Iraq, I see. Canada didn't support the Bush Administration in Iraq, so they're cowards. And they're fear in the face of Islamic terrorism was rewarded with...Islamic terrorsm. So these fraidy-cat Canadians are getting their just desserts.

Except that perhaps Canada didn't support the war in Iraq because they thought would take resources away from going after al-Qaeda. That it might exacerbate tensions in the Middle East instead of resolve them. They thought we might get caught up in sectarian violence. That the war would serve as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. And that the Bush Administration was arrogant and incompetent. What would be the greater act of cowardice--meekly aquiescing to the demands of your two closest allies, or refusing to go along with a war you believed was not in your country's best interest?

So far as your ludicrous and insulting accusation that Canada has been frightened into using pacifism as protection against Islamic terrorism, I invite you to Google the phrase "Canadian troops in Afghanistan" to learn what a joke that is. Canadian troops have been fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda--you know, the folks who attacked America on 9/11 and the folks who protected them--since we invaded. You think, just maybe, it occured to the Canadian authorities that their involvement in Afghanistan might get terrorists ticked off, regardless of their involvement in Iraq?

I think a member of the RCMP or the Canadian military who read your final line, "To think that being a critic of the American government somehow guarantees safe passage in the onslaught they wish to commit shows a deep lack of critical thinking skills, at the very least," would probably roll their eyes, laugh out loud, and say, "Thanks for the advice, but, uh, we'll do our own critical thinking, eh."

LASunsett said...

Welcome back Gene. I have been worried about you. Nice to see you are doing okay.

I think you miss the point.

There are those elements that do not remember the things you mention that have occurred in the past, long before Bush was elected. Many of those people care nothing about those things, but only care to assign blame to the President at every bad turn. They (maybe, like you) are still mad about the 2000 election. But one thing is for sure; they are not the most rational of people to have a discussion with.

Of those people, there is a certain percentage that is undoubtedly pacifist. These people have used the excuse that the reason things are the way they are, is because GWB invaded Iraq. I have talked to them; I have listened to their weak and faulty rhetoric, and have used the same logic you apply with your list of past attacks, much of it to no avail. They say that was different or that was then.

Of the Canadians that are now shocked at the heinous nature of this plot, many of them were the ones that no doubt were against the idea of going into Iraq. They have been extremely critical of everything that has happened in the world since then. And not only have they done so in Canada, they have done so here too.

How many times have I listened to speakers and read writers that have promoted this idea that tolerance and diversity was and is the answer to combating the hatred that seethes toward us? Many times many.

Canadians, as well as others, have led the charge in this ideology. And now we see that it didn't do a damned bit of good, did it? After Canada welcomed these people with open arms and allowed them to integrate into Canadian society, giving them much greater opportunity than they could have had in their home countries, they still have to fear the radical jihadists that are hell-bent on destroying western civilization.

Those people that are now shocked, those people that have been promoting this weak and faulty ideology of pacifism, and those that have blamed the President for all of this, are the ones that Mr. Kelly is addressing his essay to. Those are the same people that i addressed my commentary towards, as well. Note my beginning:

I especially suggest that those who think pacifism makes a civilization safe to take a good look at the situation that has surfaced in Toronto.

If you are one of those people, fine. Then it applies to you. If not, then you just wasted good time that you will never be able to get back, on nothing.