Sunday, July 31, 2005

Hypocrisy at its best:

One reader to my blog, TomW raises an EXCELLENT point in his commentary to the " Javed Akbar is an idiot! (Part 1)":

This is the first time I've heard the figure 200,000 dead Afghans and Iraqis. Next week, it'll be 200 million.
I've noticed that the people who point to civilian deaths NEVER actually blame the Taliban, al Qaeda, the Fedayeen Saddam, the Iraqi National Army, the Ba'athist paramilitaries, the jihadis, or the civilians themselves. No, Muslims in general and Arabs in particular are never held to the same standards of behavior as white Americans. Forget suicide bombings; what about the Iraqis using human shields when going into battle? What about the Fedayeen Saddam holding babies in one arm as they fired on Coalition troops?
What about foreign jihadis killing Iraqi policemen who only want to protect their fellow citizens? I've never understood the rationale, that it's acceptable to kill Iraqi policemen because there are Coalition troops in Iraq. What is the connection between the two? Doesn't Iraq as a sovereign nation have the right to have its own police force?
The real answer is that the world accepts inhuman savagery from Muslims because the world believes that Muslims are incapable of better behavior.
It appears that war instigated by the United States is worse than mass murder, mass starvation, mass torture, mass rape, and genocide, as long as its Muslims doing those things to other Muslims. We went to war in the former Yugoslavia to stop white people from killing and abusing white people, but when Muslims commit atrocities, everybody shrugs and says "Leave them to handle their own affairs."
As President Bush described it, this is the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

You couldn't have said it any better Tom!

Javed Akbar is an idiot! (Part 2)

Let's see what other horse manure Mr. Akbar has unloaded in his column in the Red Star:

Is there a hierarchy in pain, torture and death? Can the word "innocent" be used selectively and the word "terrorist" be assigned mainly for Muslims?

Let me translate what Mr. Akbar really means here:

The Western World is racist and Islamaphobic because of the victim "hierarchy" only uses white people as victims of terror and "terrorist" is mainly applied to Muslims.

To Mr. Akbar failing to put Western soldiers and Suicide bombers on equal footing, is the equivalent of bigotry and according to the context of this article, is the reason why the West has lost the "goodwill" of the Muslim World. But we can clearly see Mr. Akbar's sick mentality: That Soldiers from the US, The UK and Australia are no different whatsoever from Al-Qaida killers. And THAT tells us more than we need to know about Mr. Akbar.

instead of getting carried away with passions stirred by the media, we in the West need to summon the moral courage to examine, and reflect on, the root causes of this horrendous reality and take swift action to address the concerns of the Muslim world. This does not mean giving in to the demands of Osama bin Laden and his ilk, but rather a master-stroke of statesmanship for winning an enduring world peace.

When people like Mr. Akbar tells you to reflect on the "root causes", be assured its come trick to turn the whole debate upside down with a "Blame the West for the current situation". Where they will ramble on and on about Israel and America.

Such a move requires courageous leadership. But who among world leaders can rise to the occasion and seize this opportunity to help stem the tide of individual and state-sponsored terrorism once and for all?

George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, half of the European Leaders and Japan's parliament. Who are trying to:

-Instill democratic states in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-Helping them craft constitutions for a framework in their society to include ALL citizens and place constraints on government abuse.
-Improve their economies.
-So that in the end, young men and women in the middle east will actually have a government that speaks for the majority and represents them in a democratic manner. So that they can have the constitutional right to criticize and debate the issues surrounding them freely without getting killed or arrested. Creating an innovation of new ideas to move them forward.

All in all to have a society worth living in and worth raising their children in.

But apparently that's no good enough for Mr. Akbar.

Fighting violence with more violence has proven disastrous in prosecuting the "war on terror."

There are many examples that one can cite that can smash Mr Akbar's estranged fortune cookie philosophy. So far after "Fighting Violence with violence", many people and countries took notice:

-Libya has abandoned its WMD programs.
-Syria has withdrew from Lebanon after the Lebanese students movement protested the occupation of their country. (Actions and protests that Syria always ignored and crushed in the past)
-Democratic movements have spread throughout the Middle East.
-The voices of moderates in the Middle East is becoming bigger by the hour.

But these things don't matter to Mr. Akbar. To him, history begins this mourning.

He goes on:

How long do we have to suffer the rising death toll in Iraq, Afghanistan and the revenge attacks elsewhere? The occupation of the Muslim lands must end. It is illegal and morally reprehensible.

Does Mr. Akbar ever stop to reflect facts for a change? Does he not take into account:

-The US gave the Taliban a chance to hand over Bin Laden? (And they didn't)
-That Iraq has violated UN sanctions on more than one occasion?
-That Saddam Hussein was providing aid to terrorist groups like Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Abu Nidal?

Of course not!

To Mr. Akbar, the fact that you refuse to label US soldiers as "Terrorists" is hypocrisy on your part. And is the main reason why the Muslim world is pissed at you.


Friday, July 29, 2005

Javed Akbar is an idiot! (Part 1)

Well it seems that many in the Muslim community have decided to blame the current climate of fear and uncertainty on….The west!

That’s right, all the terrorist attacks and hate mongering going on in the Muslim world is placed squarely on the shoulders of Western Nations.

Think I’m being far-fetched? Well take a look at what Javed Akbar, whom is described as is director of outreach at Pickering Islamic Centre, has to say in Friday’s editorial pages in the Red Star:

Why the West has lost goodwill of Muslims.

Let’s go through what mr. Akbar has to say on why some “poor” defenseless people of the Middle East resorted to suicide bombings. And why YOU are to blame.

These are treacherous times. Peace seems to have become ever more elusive and we are all traumatized, as if an impending danger is lurking over our heads. The victims, who are falling to acts of either individual or state-sponsored terrorism, have mainly been innocent civilians.
This vicious cycle of tit-for-tat madness must stop. Every innocent life lost is too precious, too great.
To honour the souls of the more than 50 people who died in a planned and pathologically-motivated attack in London, people the world over did stop in solemn silence and paid their respects by adopting the slogan: "Today we are all British."

So far so good. But it’s all downhill from here:

It was a poignant way to express solidarity with the bereaving families and nation. Paradoxically, when more than 200,000 people were killed in attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, no one said: "Today we are all Iraqis or Afghanis."
What hypocrisy. What gall.

Right there we see the absurdity of mr Akbar’s parallel universe. Never mind his casualty number is widely disputed, we also see his ludicrous moral-equivalence between suicide bombers who’s attacks are deliberately meant to kill civilians, and civilians killed as collateral damage in Afghanistan and Iraq. Never really realizing the context of both deaths.

Just so we can make it simple for Mr. Akbar’s estranged psychology:

Terrorists=AIM for Civilians.
Western Soldiers= DO NOT aim directly at civilians.

But According to Mr. Akbar, American, European and Australian troops are no different than the Al-Qaida terrorists.
This is the same kind of crap Imams in the Middle East raise in order to flame of hatred of the Western World.

He continues:

The horror of 9/11 and now the aftermath of the London bombings reveal, more than anything else, the discord between the true nature of Islam, as religion, culture and civilization, and the way it is projected in the current palpable cloud of Islamophobia. Islam is relentlessly portrayed as an obscurantist, unethical enterprise. Muslims now actually wear the garb of the very demons that the media have been projecting as a collective profile for an entire community and a whole faith.

What???? Excuse me kind sir, but didn’t Paul Martin just meet with a group of Imams in order to assure them he understands them? Didn’t the MSM quickly point out to their readers, listeners and viewers that the killers’ didn’t represent the majority of Muslims? Weren’t the G8 leaders tripping over themselves to assure their sympathy and concern for moderate Muslims shortly after the London Bombings? Just what “palpable cloud” of Islamaphobia is Mr. Akbar referring to? Where is this “relentless portrayal” of Islam as a “an obscurantist, unethical enterprise”? Does he cite any sources or refer to anything specific? Of course not!

(Part 2 Tomorrow)

The "closeted moderates"

Nadz, an Arab-American blogger writes about the growing number of Arab moderates in the middle east:

I'd call them "closeted moderates". While the Islamists and the anti-American nationalists scream at the top of their lungs in coffee shops and on TV, these are the people who secretly roll their eyes. While others spin conspiracy theories, they nod quietly. When the Islamists talk about how we need more religion in public life, they keep their mouths shut to avoid offending the easily offended. Their opinions, I'm sure, are diverse, but they have one thing in common - they're fed up with the crap we keep telling ourselves, and want to have an honest discussion about our problems.

The question is, how many closeted moderates are there? How many people are secular? How many don't buy the "blame-America" rhetoric we're fed daily? It's hard to say, because no one speaks up.

Now from reading her post, its clear the Nadz was talking about Arabs in the Middle East. But what's depressing is that many Arabs in North America and Europe suffer from the same problem.

Other than Irshad Manji, Salim Mansur, Amir Tahiri and a few others, barely anyone in the community has the guts to stand up to the fundamentalists among us here. Arab student associations do nothing but criticize Israel and the United States, without ever mentioning the human-right abuses and dictatorships that are rampant in our own homelands. Muslims leaders over here are too busy crying out "RACIST!" and "RACIAL PROFILING" at the government to crack down on the radical imams who day in and day out spew anti-Semitic and those who praise the Islamist fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To even move away and start criticizing the current status-quo would risk accusations of "You've been brainwashed by the Zionist media!" and "CIA agent!!". All in all your reputation gets shattered among the community gossip, and your family members get marked for ridicule.

The Islamists among us here, feed upon this. The feed upon the ignorance, the gullibility, the closed-mindedness, the lack of internal dissent to spread their filth.

Which is why those on the outside of the Arab and Muslim communities must keep the pressure on them to condemn terrorism and the middle-eastern mentality. And not be intimidated by cries of "bigotry" and "racism" from them and their leftist apologists (who only need them for greater political power).

To sit back and do nothing, only accelerates the self-destructive attitude of Middle Easterners both in the West and in the Arab World. And worse of all, fuels in the ongoing clash of civilizations between the two worlds. As experienced in Europe already.

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Iraqi Boy salutes Bush

They had lunch at the Pentagon with Robert Reilly, a Defense Department adviser who helped smooth the way for the visit. Ayad saluted a picture of the president, saying in English, "Bush, very, very good."

The story of an Iraqi Boy who had the opportunity to see American compassion first-hand.

I already can hear the leftist heads exploding.

Hat Tip: Neale News.

Top 10 reasons to privatize the CBC

Found this article from the CATO institute rather interesting. It lists 10 reasons why PBS should be privatized and the positive aspects of it. There's an ongoing debate in the United States as to whether or not to privatized or scratch Public broadcasting altogether.

Let me go through each point and give a Canadian point of view vis-a-vis the CBC.

10. We live in a 500-channel world...Today we have six over-the-air networks and hundreds of cable channels offering everything from news to soap operas to classic movies to history and opera.

Right. So should the CBC disappear, you won't be missing anything that you won't be able to get at another channel.

9. Sesame Street isn't so special any more. When anyone suggests cutting the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, its defenders immediately cry "they're trying to kill Sesame Street!"

In Canada defenders of the CBC usually fall back on the "Hockey Night in Canada" defense. But should the CBC be privatized, no new owner(s) would be stupid enough to scratch the most profitable entity in the corporation. And should they be stupid enough to do so, CTV or Global will be more than happy to pick it up themselves.
So relax...As long as there will be a Canada, there will always be hockey.

8. Republicans are trying to regulate the way public broadcasting works. A Republican chairman of the CPB, which funds both NPR and the PBS, has appointed a Republican activist as president and CEO. He also commissioned a conservative activist to report to him on PBS's programming.

Ditto for the Grits up here.
Now let's turn the tables on the lefties. Say a conservative government gets elected in the future. And say the Prime Minister appoints someone like Conrad Black to be the chairman of the Crown corporation. Would that be fair?

Crown corporations like the CBC are ripe for political patronage appointments. Its unethical and poisons the political debate in this country.

7. Public broadcasting has a liberal bias.

Understatement of the year!!!! When the CBC's idea of a "vigorous debate" includes an NDP MP arguing to increase public spending by 30 per cent and a Liberal MP arguing for an increase of spending by 15 per cent, its not just bias, its suffocation.

6. Bias is inevitable. Any reporter or editor has to choose what's important. It's impossible to make such decisions without a framework, a perspective, a view of how the world works. But taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize any set of biases.

Nothing to add here. Applies to both countries.

5. You shouldn't use tax money for lobbying.

How many times have we heard CBC radio personalities urging their listeners to take action against the US or argue for more public funding for X social program? Which raises another point: Public broadcasting doesn't measure the pulse of a nation, its basically the government talking to itself.

4. Public broadcasting subsidizes the rich. A PBS survey shows that its viewers are 44 percent more likely than the average American to make more than $150,000 a year.

There's no major study as far as I know that measures the socio-economic characteristics of loyal CBC viewers. But it can be argued that Taxpayers are carrying a heavy load for CBC programs that are watched by a tiny fraction of the population and who receive funding that's over their market value.

3. This is not applicable to Canada as the CBC gets ALL its funding from the federal government. Which makes the matter worse. It gives no incentive for the CBC to improve its programming.

2. Surely 2 billion dollars a year can be better spent on other more pressing matters than radio and television, which are considered luxury items BTW. How about Health Care?

1. The separation of news and state. We wouldn't want the federal government to publish a national newspaper. Why should we have a government television network and a government radio network?

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Iraqi Woman Kicking Terrorist Ass!

Now this is one "Progressive" initiative I'd like to see more of.

You can read more about her in Publius Pundit.

Liberals are still in the doghouse.

Contrary to what the Montreal Gazette is trying to tell you, the Federal Liberals are still in the doghouse and have been for a long time.

The headline is incredibly misleading, and even contradicts itself furthur in the article:

-The Liberals are worse off now than they were last year:

That's the good news for Quebec Liberals. The bad news for them - and there's plenty of it - is that the Bloc Quebecois remained 22 points ahead of the Grits at 50 per cent. The gap between the parties is even wider than when the Liberals got crushed in Quebec in 2004.

The Bloc took 54 of Quebec's 75 seats last year with a popular vote margin of 15 points - 49 per cent Bloc, 34 Liberal.

Furthur more, if you look at the history of Federal elections and the way in which Quebecers vote, the Liberals have been in the doghouse since 1984.

The last time the Liberals dominated the Quebec electorate was in 1980, where they got all but one seat in Quebec.

In 1984, after the first referendum, that number suddenly collapses to 14.

In 1988, it goes down to 12.

In 1993, after the collapse of the PC, they were able to take a slight increase of seats up to 19.

In 1997 and 2000 they expereinced a small increase receiveing 26 and 36 seats respectively. Renember though, this was the same time when the sponsorship program was in full throttle, and yet they still could'nt beat the BLOC who receieved 44 and 38 seats respectively. (The performance is less impressive when you factor in the popular vote when split among the PC, Alliance and NDP).

And of course we all know of the hammering they Grits took in 2004.

What does this tell us?

That without vote-buying and corruption, the federal Liberals will always be in "the dog house" in Quebec. And that their centralization policies does not reasonate well with voters in this province.

Now in spite of all this does this mean Harper and the Federal Conservatives have no chance in Quebec? Nope. I'll describe why this week-end.

Aly Hindy is at it again.

Apparently the good Immam has pissed off the folks at CSIS.

Only this time Hindy contradicts himself about the storey of a CSIS investigation:

Hindy, who is the imam and president of Scarborough's Salaheddin Islamic Centre, said the woman who approached him with the allegations—that CSIS agents pushed her and purposely came to her home when her husband was at the mosque for Friday prayers— is too frightened to go public and would not likely cooperate with the police investigation.

Now this is a big difference with the story he told the Globe and Mail two days ago:

Mr. Hindy, who has long complained that CSIS is spying on him, his family and his mosque, told Ms. McLellan that a young Muslim woman complained to him she was roughed up by Canadian spies while her husband was away at prayers.

Now roughed up and pushed her are two different levels of abuse altogether. The Globe article made it sound as if CSIS agents stormed into the house and beat the crap out of the poor wommen.

This contradiction by Hindy makes it all too easy to believe CSIS when they call his accusations of abuse unsubstantiated. read: Bullshit! Which is what they are.

Now what I found more noticeable in this Star article is the last line of the article:

Hindy has also not shied away from the media, either in Canada or as a Canadian voice abroad, telling CNN last year that Canadian Muslims have had their freedoms restricted.

Why is this noticeable? Becausese that's the exact same way that sheikh Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed began attracting followers:
1)Radicalizing the young Muslim Youth in their communities.
2)Play the victimizeon card to divide the local Muslims from their host countries.

And the rest is history. What the idiotic MSM doesn't know, is that he's using them to increase his audience!

If you live in the GTA, contact your local media and tell them to stop giving this guy so much attention and let CSIS do its job. We already know he's full of BS and that his connections to Al-Qaida suspects is good reason for concern.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Arabs protest Terrorism!

Protests in Egypt by the bravest people you can imagine:

And yet..not a single mention of this in the Canadian MSM!

For in-depth details of the protests, please follow the links:

Rantings of a Sand Monkey: Here and Here.

The Big Pharaoh: Here

And the organizer of it all, Egyptian-American blogger Karim Elsahy:

They're organizing a bigger one either today or tomorrow.
Keep it up guys!

Can it really happen?

Today's quote of the day comes from Montreal Gazette Columnist L. Ian MacDonald:

Its subscriber only, but here is a quote that got me thinking, "Can it really happen?"

"For months, I've had this recurring dream that Canadian troops, operating in winter in the mountains of Afghanistan, capture Osama himself. But we're unable to hand him over to the Americans because he files a refugee claim on the grounds the U.S. would torture him in prison. Nah, it's just a bad dream."

Or is it? I got 50$ that says should that happen, the NDP, Carolyn Parish, the Council of Canadians and Sacha Trudeau will protest on his behalf. Any takers?

Connecting the dots on Hindy.

What do we know so far about Aly Hindy:

-He is the imam at a mosque which was founded and financed by an Al-Qaida operative.
-He is a good friend to the Khadr family (even prior to their departure to Afghanistan).
-He is a personal friend to Al-Qaida suspect Amer el-Maati.
-It is rumored that his mosque receives some Saudi Funding. But things like this are almost impossible to confirm.
-Some of the youths who attend his congregation have expressed interest in taking up Arms against US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which gives you an idea on what kind of sermons he preaches on Fridays.
-He was being investigated by both Canadian and Egyptian anti-terrorism task forces as far back as 1993!
-He has urged the Muslim-Canadian community not to co-operate with CSIS and the RCMP.
-And finally he has made a veiled threat against Canada.

Now the good news about all this is that almost every article that I have come across regarding Hindi, states that he is being watched by the RCMP and CSIS.

However, I must conclude that Mr. Hindy knows more about Al-Qaida/Jihadist activities here in Canada than what he's telling authorities. Its impossible to have so much connection to Canadian Al-Qaida cells, while preaching at a Mosque founded by Al-Qaida and not know anything.

So far this is all I know. But if you have any other details/articles on Hindy, send it to me. Or if your a blogger and have made a post entry on him, be sure to send that to me as well.

I'll definitely keep my eye out on him. And I can guarantee you that this isn't the last time we hear from Hindy in the MSM.

Monday, July 25, 2005

Who is Aly Hindy?

Well Wonders never cease!!!

As the Globe Article points out, Aly Hindy is the head of Scarborough's Salaheddin Islamic Centre. What it did'nt point out is that the founding director of the mosque was none other than Hassan Farhat.

As the Red Star explains to us, CSIS believes Mr. Farahat is directly linked to Al-Qaida:

He was a founding director of a Scarborough mosque and a doting father who brought his children to the park for picnics on weekends.

Now he's been named as a key commander of a terrorist group linked to Al Qaeda that's fighting against the Americans in Iraq.

The allegation was made this week by Jim Judd, director of Canada's spy service.

Hassan Farhat, known as Abdul Jaber to security officials and Abu Khalid to friends, was a landed immigrant who left Canada in October 2001 to return to Iraq.

He left in frustration after years of being refused Canadian citizenship, his friends say.

According to corporate records, he was one of the founding directors of Scarborough's Salaheddin Islamic Centre, which houses a school and mosque and has been closely monitored by security agencies.

Oh but that's not all...Mr. Hindy is also a close associate with our very good freinds, The Khadrs:

Aly Hindy, a Toronto imam and friend of the Khadr family, says he is appalled by what he has seen on the documentary. He hopes there isn't a backlash against Canada's Muslim community.

Mr. Hindy is ALSO a very good friend of suspected terrorist, Amer el-Maati:

How close? See for yourslef:

Having finally flown out of Cairo with his mother yesterday, Mr. El-Maati was warmly greeted by Aly Hindy, a Toronto religious leader who complains that Canadian spies have long kept him and members of his mosque under surveillance. Paul Copeland, a prominent Toronto lawyer, was also at the airport to make sure Mr. El-Maati's arrival went smoothly. Imam who preaches at a Mosque founded by an Al-Qaida suspect, a good freind of the Khadr family and Amer el-Maati.

UPDATE: This article tells us that at one point in his life, Hindy was held and questioned in Egypt. But it doesn't elaborate on what charges.

UPDATE 2: Fellow Blogging Tory Brent Colbert has more on Hindi's personal history.

Sick Victimization

What can I say about this?

Ravishing Light has basiacly taken the words out of my mouth, so I'll just add a few points:

We see the "controversial" Aly Hindy urging Muslim Canadians to refuse to co-operate with law enforcement to bring terrorists who pose a threat to both Muslim and Non-Muslim Canadians, to justice.

"We believe CSIS should stop terrorizing us," he says in a flyer he is circulating to mosques. "CSIS is powerless. CSIS has no authority over you. If CSIS agents come to your door, do not open [it] for them."

Boy, that really helps you sleep at night doesn't it?
I mean he's only advocating leaving Canadian Law Enforcement in the dark about possible terrorist activities here.

We also see him in a sly way, giving a nod to the Iraqi insurgents (who are also killing their fellow Iraqis BTW).

The imam said six or seven young men have approached him to discuss "fighting overseas" in place such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said he told them "people fighting in Iraq, they don't need more people."

So not only is he encouraging Muslims in this country to not co-operate with law enforcement, he's admiting that we have willing jihadists right here!

Instead, Canadian Muslims can wage non-violent jihads (holy struggles) at home. "You have a very good chance to serve Islam here," he said he told them.

Problem is many of these young men will easily turn from non-violent to violent becuase of ther crap some of these immams preach. Just like in Europe (whom most of the Immams also urged them to wage "non-violent" jihads).

But what really bothered me was how Anne McLellan and her entourage labelled this meeting a success.

What, in the name of evreything that's holly, was successful about this meeting?

The fact that:
1)One Immam is urging no co-operation with CSIS?
2)That there is some Muslim youths in this country willing to fight Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan?
3)That what the Immams are preaching here, has an eerie resemblence to what the Immams in Europe are preaching pre-9/11?

Now who is Aly Hindy? More on that later today.

Monday Mourning Quarterback

Everey Monday edition of the Montreal Gazette, my favorite sports columnist Jack Todd writes his excellent columns titled "Monday Mourning QuarterBack" in where he offers commentary on all the sports news in the previous week.

Inspired by that, I have decided to do the same, only to replace it with a political theme.

Here Goes:

Canadian Islamic Congress discovers that its "Canadian":
CIC's own Mohammed "Israeli Civilians are legitimate targets" Elmasry has asked his congregation during Friday prayers to start "smart integration" into Canadian like. And...

"The congregation was told that this fall, courses will be offered in Toronto on Canadian history, law, media and political systems to help foster greater participation in western life.

Which is great! But begs the question...Just what exactly were you telling Muslim Canadians to do before the London bombings Dr.Elmasry?

Calling Sacha Trudeau!: Saddam Needs you! Yes the butcher of Baghdad is claiming mistreatment during his trial and imprisonment. But before his groupies over this side of the atlantic haywire, this is what he's complaining about:

Wearing a dark blue suit and a white shirt, Saddam also objected to not getting a response from judges when he greeted them.

"When someone like me says 'peace be upon you,' and no one responds, then, this is a big insult for someone like Saddam Hussein," said the former Iraqi leader.

Yeah...I know.

Hope for Harper: To all those of you who believe that "lack of charisma"=automatic defeat for Harper, check out how Montreal Gazette Columnist Norman Webster profiles Australia and its excellent leader John Howard:

Howard, the country's prime minister has a truely punishing lack of charisma

and continues

"John Howard makes Harper seem like a wild and crazy guy"

If Howard can get elected three times in a row, so can Harper.

-Replace Mohammed Elmasry with Salim Mansur!:
Salim Mansur lays the smackdown on Sharia Law and the morons who want to instill it in Canada. A must read!

I could'nt agree more. My parents brought me to this great country to escape the repressive, neo-fascist laws in the Middle-East, not create them.

Question of the week:
-The Anti-Europeans: Now if the Conservative Party's position on SSM (Civil Unions) is "bigoted" and "goes against human rights", does that mean that the British, the French, the Swedes, The Danes, The Polish and the Finns (who all have the same opinion on SSM) are socially backward societies in Paul Martin and Jack Layton's view?

Not all conservatives are happy with John G. Roberts Jr: Ann Coulter is not impressed with Bush's choice for Supreme Court Judge. A little overblown in my opinion. However her concerns are legitimate. How many times have Republicans appointed "Conservative" judges who ended up seduced by the power of judicial activism?

Rae days ahead: I see that the Toronto establishment media is propping up Bob Rae as a successor to Paul Martin.
Woo Hoo! In that case why bother with an election, just give us the Majority of seats already and save the Taxpayers 300 million dollars. :)

Orwell Lives!: We should protect the concept of freedom of religion by eliminating it altogether! Is this twit for real?

-Hamas' new spiritual leader: What does David Miller's city council and Hamas have in common?

They're both allies in the War against fun.

Sheesh..and people make fun of the "Christian Right" for things like this.

Go Habs Go!: After a nerve-racking lotto draft Montreal got 5th choice in the 2005 NHL entry draft (SO CLOSE!). Hopefully we can get a kick ass forward like Benoit Pouliot or Jack Johnson. Either of them is fine though. Both of them have the ability to beat the senior citizens (aka Toronto Mapple Leafs) by themselves. :p

Political cartoon of the week:


This Weeks HEROES AND ZEROES (click on the name to find out why):

Heroes: John Howard, Monte Solberg, Gen. Rick Hiller, The Iraqi People, Salim Mansur, Mike Duffy, Sidney Crosby, John G. Roberts, and last but not least...The Blogging Tories for allowing me to be on their awsome blogroll.

Zeroes: The CBC, Heather Mallick, Terrorist assholes, Bob Ferguson , Toronto City Council , Pat Martin, Matt Good and last but not least the Toronto Mapple Leafs...becuase they're the Toronto Mapple Leafs :p.

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Attacks on Sharam-El-Sheikh

I really don't know what to say......Anger, sadness, frustration are burning inside me in a way which I cannot describe.

83 Die in Car Bombs at Egyptian Resort

For those of you unfamiliar with the locations in the Middle East, Sharam El-Sheikh is a beach resort city in Egypt which is a popular destination for European and Middle Eastern tourists.

The victims of these bombings are both Christian AND Muslim. I just want one answer from those who are naive enough to believe that killings like this occur because of "US Foreign Policy" or "Western Imperialism". Those who believe that they are safe from crimes of humanities such as this because their country didn't take part of the Iraq War, or that they marched in a "Anti-War" protest, or because they preach "tolerance" with Islam:

If these fuckers are killing their own fellow Muslims, the very people whom they expect support from and whom they claim to speak on behalf of, the very same people who they claim are fighting for...What makes you think they're not gonna come after you or your own countrymen?

PLEASE explain it to me.

UPDATE: For local reactions instead of the filtered crap by the MSM, go to the following lnks:

The Big Pharaoh
Rantings of a Sandmonkey

Can you PLEASE give this man a standing ovation?

Gen. Rick Hillier keeps getting better and better:

Hillier, who was appointed chief of defence staff earlier this year, was in Toronto to talk to the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies about his new vision for the military in Canada.

In light of the mission to Afghanistan and the recent bombings and bomb scares in London, Hillier spent much of his speech explaining how Canada would deal with terrorist threats.

He said Canada and other countries face danger from "failed and failing states" if Canada doesn't go in and try to help them create democratic states.

Hillier also said people are just beginning to wake up and realize that present threats of terrorism aren't the same as the threat during the more "conventional" Cold War.

Hmmmm...Prime Minister Hillier...I like the sound of that!

(Hat Tip: Neale News)

Friday, July 22, 2005

Myth Debunked

Liberal Myth: Islamic Terrorism exist becuase of US presence/actions in the Middle East.

Actual Fact:
Here is how the UK-Based Pro Al-Qaida gasbag Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed sees it:

Via: Washington Post.

In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as "a sincere man who fights against evil forces."

Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.

"I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world," he said.

There you have it...straight from the horse's mouth. WorldWide Islamic Supremacy. Whenever Bin Laden, or Zarqawi or any member of the Islamic Jihad mention "American Imperialism" in the Middle East..they're only counting on your gullibility.

(Shout out to Warwick for pointing out this invaluable source).

A Good Start

The council on American-Islamic relations in Canada released a very promising statement:

"Those who would use violence for their twisted acts betray the most basic value of the sanctity of human life. We have opposed, and will continue to oppose, all extremism, hate and terrorism.

"Any one who claims to be a Muslim and participates in any way in the taking of innocent life is betraying the very spirit and letter of Islam. We categorically and unequivocally reject such acts. We will confront and challenge the extremist mindset that produces this perversion of our faith.

"We remind Canadian Muslims that no injustice done to Muslims anywhere can ever justify the taking of innocent life. All life, whether here or abroad, is sacred."

So far so good. The next step is action against the radical elements within our community which helps fuel the tide of hatred and terrorism against our fellow Canadians and the rest of the Western Civilization.

Clamping down on the extremists, is simultaneous with battling "Islamaphobia". The simple logic is that whatever "Islamaphobia" that exists is due to the fundamentalists , their sick and demented view on life, and the crappy job Muslim and Arab-Canadian groups have done to differentiate ourselves from them.

Media Bias confirmed.

Mike Duffy reveals what every Conservative in Canada knew.

But Duffy admits a Liberal bias at some media outlets makes it difficult for Harper and the Conservatives to get their message out.

"I've just been speaking to a couple of young journalists and I was shocked" he said.

"One young journalist in New Brunswick said to me 'when I see Stephen Harper I see the enemy.' It's not journalists' place to have enemies".

(Hat Tip: Neale News)

This isn't much of a surprise as much as its a confirmation.
That's why I believe Conservatives in Canada should be focusing on alternative media outlets. Such as The Internet and Talk Radio.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

The myth of the 'moderate' Muslim

Salim Mansur writes an excelent article about the lack of Moderate Muslims in this world, and how the current status-quo within muslim communities help groups like Al-Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah:

The expectation there is a large, identifiable segment of "moderate" Muslims is a transposition to the Muslim world of the idea of "moderation" in politics and religion that sustains democracies.

But this has not happened. On the contrary, as atrocities mount, Muslims generally have remained -- their private anguish aside --publicly complacent, and their religious leaders divided on what should be the proper Islamic response.

There has been no spontaneous or organized demonstration of Muslims across the Arab-Muslim world, nor in European or North American cities where Muslims reside in increasing numbers, in support of victims of such terror and in unqualified condemnation of extremists who exploit Islam for their criminal purposes.

Read the rest here.

Actual Quotes/Actions by Canadian MP's.

From the Canadian Coalition for Democracies:

Carolyn Parish:

"The U.S. should cut off the $6-billion per year it sends Israel. That would get the Israelis' attention." -- Aug. 2, 2002

Isn't it amazing how the same Canadians who tell the US to "mind their own business" are the very same Canadians who feel that they can tell the US what to do?

But wait there's more:

“In Palestine, the young become suicide bombers. It is very important to remember that humiliation and lack of hope are the main motivators sited [sic] by suicide bombers.”

Right...nothing to do with sick indoctrination since kindergarden.

Bill Graham on Hezbollah:
"We don't believe it would be appropriate to label as terrorists innocent doctors, teachers and other people who are seeking to do charitable and other good works in their communities." -- Oct. 31, 2002 killing their political enemies.

But in the name of a "fair-balanced Foreign Policy" Graham also had it in for the Israeli-Canadian victims of Terror:

He ordered the Canadian ambassador to Israel, Donald Sinclair, not to visit the grieving family of a Canadian Jew, Yechezkel Goldberg, murdered by a Palestinian terrorist on a bus in Jerusalem. Why? Because the family lived in the disputed West Bank, a territory Palestinian terrorists believe should be Jew-free.

We also learn of Liberal MP John Godfrey's hallucination problems:

"It's been quite a week. We wake up one morning and discover in our newspaper that Canada is now under the military command of a U.S. proconsul. Sound familiar? Remember when Douglas MacArthur ruled Japan after the Second World War as American proconsul? Or when Julius Caesar ruled the defeated province of Gaul as Roman proconsul?" -- April 22, 2002

Dude...put the crackpipe down!

Coleen Beaumier sends her regards to Saddam Hussein's right-hand man Tariq Aziz:

Listen to this prick:

Andrew Telegdi:

About the Canadian Jewish Congress, which was seeking the deportation of Helmut Oberlander (member of Einsatzkommando 10A, a Nazi death squad that killed 90,000 civilians in World War 2), Telegdi said: "They're totally alone.”

And actually gets priased by the famous Holocaust-Denier David Irving.

Racial-Profile Me!

A recent trip to the US to attend my cousins's wedding allowed me to re-visit the issue of racial profiling in airports following 9/11.

Racial Profiling has been debated in our society since time immemorial. Its a very sensitive issue to say the least. With some arguing that its an effective crime-fighting tool for law enforcement, while others argue that it solves nothing, is an infringement of civil-rights and promotes unnecessary inter-racial tensions.

I disagree with the later. While "promotes unnecessary inter-racial tensions" is debatable, there's no denying that racial profiling has helped law enforcement on several cases.

But quite frankly from my travel experiences (and I do travel often, 2-3 times a year), I've come to realize that no racial profiling in airports following 9/11, leads to increased racial tension between me and the rest of the travelers.

Let's get things in perspective here, there's currently a war going on between Western Nations and Muslim terrorists. More likely than not, those fighting on the other side have the same physical characteristics as me. Young, Male and from a Arab/Muslim background.

So its perfectly understandable that when I travel, people look at me at first with suspesion. Its not racism, or the fact that they hate people of my background, its simply they're concerns for they're own security.

Which brings me to my recent trip to Chicago to attend a cousin's wedding. What happned in the airport?....Nothing. To the surprise of my fellow travelers, it took me minutes after I checked in at the ticket counter at Trudeau airport to get through US Customs, through "security" to my gate. Another young Middle-Eastern travler who was on on the same flight recieved the same speedy treatment. However, an 80 year old wommen in a wheelchair traveling with her grandaughter was patted down, questioned and had all her carry ons searched.

Someone exlplain to me the logic of this! 2 young travelers of middle-eastern descent with the vague reason of travel ("Visiting some family members") get zoomed twowrds their planes with little or no hassle, while a white 80 year old grandmother in a wheelchair on her way to receieve hip surgery gets the "hands-on" experience.

Who's more likely to carry out a terrorist attack on the plane? Me and the other Arab guy? Or the Grandmother?

The other passengers on the plane were rightly shocked. And we were looked at with fear and suspession. (It was roughly 24 hours after the London Bombings). Many passengers on that plane felt insecure. There was stairing. There was pointing. Lots of whispering "do they look "ok" to you?"

And quite frankly I was also uneasy. Because I knew the other young Middle-Eastern passenger got through quite easily as well. How do I know if he's up to no good? How do I know he's no threat? The security check for him was litterly a quick walk in the park, did they overlook something in his luggage?

Finally when the plane landed, evreything was ok. The stairing turned to smiles and the pointing turned to friendly nods.

But I asked myself, What would have happned had racial profiling took place? What would have happned had I been thoroughly searched and questioned vigorously and not the old lady? Well first of all it would have saved the poor wommen alot of pain and humiliation. And it would have made the other passengers feel more secure. And thereofore the flight would have been enjoyable and relaxing rather than tense and awkward.

And I would have a little peace of mind as well. I would have the knowledge that the other Middle-Eastern guy on the flight is no threat.

Cause quite frankly, I'm a passenger as well. As Arab-American journalist Joseph Farah explains this issue in this old column:

Why would I want to see a security system that would cause me more hassle? Because I want to see my flights land at airports – not in buildings. A few moments of irritation are well worth it. When I fly El Al, it gives me peace of mind to have my bags searched, to go through extra security checks, to be interrogated longer than non-Arabs.

There you have it. Racial profiling young Middle-Eastern men in airports not only makes you safer, but it makes us safer as well.

Now does this constitute as racism? Well...let's put the concept of profiling in another context.

When I worked at a convenience store in my University days, I was told to keep an eye out for young teenage customers. Why? Because they're more likely to steal the alcohol. They're more likely to stuff products in their school bags and walk out. They're more likely to show me fake-Id's to buy cigarettes. (And its true!) Does this constitute as age-ism? Or common sense?

Or how about the case of a buddy of mine who works in Mall Security. Who's told to watch out for Ladies with big purses. Why? Because police records and their own records show that they're more likely to be doing the shoplifting. Does this constitute as sexism? Or are the businesses just looking out for their own interests?

So I ask you (No...BEG you!), to tell your government to ignore the PC crowd and call upon the appropriate officials to institute racial profiling in the airports.

Ask that me and my fellow young Middle Easterners have our bags searched, to go through extra security checks, to be interrogated longer than the others. And for the love of god...stop hassling the old ladies.

In life, there is no greater "Civil Right" than the right to live.

Do this for the sake of your own personal security-and mine.

Disclaimer to "Progressive" Moonbats: This opinion is that of my own and does not reflect the collective thinking of the Blogging Tories , the Conservative Party of Canada or any of the linked media.

This story was crossposted to Colbert's Comment's Friday Open Trackback Party

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

CBC workers vote to strike:

Via CBC Watch:

"Most voters agreed with our vision of the future," said chief negotiator Dan Oldfield. "Ongoing work must be performed by permanent employees."

The union says the main issue continues to be the CBC's insistence on a new contract that will allow it to hire most new employees on a casual basis.

Contracting out, employees' right to reassignment in the event of downsizing and compensation for overtime are other key issues that remain unresolved.

Here's a question about Public-Sector Unions. Now how come when I ask for a tax cut to increase my income, I'm called "selfish" and "greedy" yet when Unions strike for higher pay, all I hear from the Liberal-Left is "Solidarity!" and chants of "We shall overcome!"?

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

How "For Profit" businesses give back to society.

As Patrick from "Tout le Monde En Parle" states in his Canada Day post, one of the cons of living in Canada is the attitude many Canadians have in the Public Vs. Private Sector economic debate:

- We don't realize that there is nothing the public sector does better than the
private sector. To us, when money is made somewhere it's gottta be dirty.

In Canada (especially in Quebec) Profitable businesses are looked at with great suspicion and envy. There is absolutely no shortage of politicians, academics, journalists and social activists who day in and day out scream to "Tax the Rich" . All in the name of helping society's poor. Which in a way in an honorable opinion. But its the wrong one. The Left for the most part sees the Private Sector and emerging entrepreneurs as contributing nothing to society but greed and class warfare.

Motivated by this and by ToryBlue's excellent post on this matter, I feel compelled to break this leftist myth that's dogging the debate on economic policy in this country and urge evreyone to

Here is an article written by John Tamny over at the National Review on how Profitable Businesses and "The Rich" contribute to society in more ways than just paying a large share of the government revenue:

1.Charles Schwab, the 68th richest American, made investing in the stock market
easy and affordable for the middle class. In doing so he helped launch an
investment boom that an increasing number of Americans are able to participate
2.Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the 234th richest American, has developed a
drug (Abraxane) that is injected into cancerous tumors. The tumors feed on
Abraxane, only to be wiped out by a cancer-killing "Trojan Horse" within.
3.It is estimated that Wal-Mart stores save consumers $100 billion a year. In other
words, Wal-Mart's customers get a raise every time they shop there.
Unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart's heirs and executives take up spots four through eight
on the Forbes 400.
4.Can anyone imagine living without Google, Amazon, and
travel websites such as Expedia? Internet trailblazers Sergey Brin and Larry
Page (43), Jeff Bezos (38), and Barry Diller (215) are all Forbes 400 members.

In other words, "Profitable Business" and "The Rich" have managed to:
-Speed up innovation to improve our products and services. Making our lives a hell of alot easier.
-Saving us millions of dollars in purchasing.
-Saved Lives.
-Gave us more access to information.

Read the rest of Tamny's article here.

Also check out this article by Libertarian writer Marcus Epstein on how Successful investment and charity go hand in hand.

Hizbullah's "respect" for Democracy

As Lebanon is now free of Syrian rule, the Lebanese government decided to turn a new page from its dark past today by honoring a cease-fire deal all factions of the Lebanese Civil War agreed upon in 1989.

The Lebanese Parliament voted to release Samir Geagea after he was jailed by the Syrians in 1994 for "Political Disturbance" (Read: Anti Syrian Occupation Dissent). In which he slammed Syria for sidelining him after he honored his ceasefire deals.

Hizbullah was not happy. As this report from Al-Jazeera shows us:

Some 100 lawmakers, including Geagea's wife, voted for the amnesty motions,
while about 15 legislators of Shia Muslim group Hizb Allah and their allies
walked out when lawmakers began debating Geagea's case.

So when its time to debate things they don't agree on, Hizbullah and its supporters decide to walk away and start shooting up the place:

The violence began when sticks and rocks were used in fighting between
of the Shia Amal movement and Christian Maronite supporters of
When gunfire broke out, Lebanese army units were deployed
the area to stop the violence. Several armed men from both sides were

Classy. This is the group which the Liberal Party of Canada had to be persuaded to ban from Canada.

The Dark Ages of Islam

Mychal Massie of Worldnetdaily wrote a must-read today.

He basically talks about what the Islamic Fundamentalists have in mind for us should they ever win their "Jihad".

Here is the part I really enjoyed:

Ed Turzanski of LaSalle University and the Foreign Policy Research Institute points out that "Muslims of the pre-Mongol invasions would not recognize the religion today," a point I in no way question – the problem is they're not the ones thrust upon the world of today, a point Turzanski also makes.
Turzanski continues: "Because Islam has never had a reformation, a period of introspection where people have challenged the doctrines of rigid fundamentalism, you have the most rigid set of rules of what people can do and think." The "Wahhabists" have usurped the religion preaching "violence."

Key word here: reformation
I'm sure that this is something we can ALL agree on. Both on the Right and the Left. Islam is in need of a reformation period.

Trouble is, this "Reformaion" will not happen if the current status-quo in the Middle East and the Muslim World is in place. And by that I mean, same Leaders, same system of governments, sameimamss, same intellectualss". Same way of thinking.

Right now in most parts in the Middle East, there exists apoisonouss mindset. Personal responsibility is unheard of. The people acknowledge that their leaders are pricks, but no one does anything about it. There is no questioning of the radical agendas espoused by the radicalimamss during the Friday Sermons. Religious tolerance is unheard of. Where people latch on the premise that being "Muslim"automaticallyy makes you a better person than the rest. There's no alternative views in the news. And everything, and I mean evreything from recessions, to bad food, to bad business deals, to epidemics is blamed on some obscure Anti-Semitic theory.

(My favorite was in 1998 during the world cup, when I was in the UAE visiting some Friends and family.Moroccoo was just tied in points with Belgium in its group for second place. So the tiebraker was determined by goal differentials. Belgium Won. But boy did that not go well with the folks downtheree person in the living room stood up and blamed it all on some "secret deal" done between Brazil, Fifa and Israel! (I kid you not!!)

This type ofpoisonouss thinking is destroying them, theirfamiliess and their countries. And what's worse is that as time progressed, the conspiracies have gotten more insane, the religious clerics have become more radical, the economy hasworsenedd (for most people) and the Political leaders show little signs of abdicating their thrones and instituting necessary political reforms.

Which is why I'm a supporter of the Iraq War. I really believe that President Bush is sincere in his goal to make a Iraq a better place. An elected Government where all people of all views in the country are represented. Freedom of the press to allow debate within society and allow the people to have access to alternative commentary. Reforming the education system. Reforming the economy. Reforming the Political Process and the Law. Which I believe in the long-run will lead to a better Iraq.

Where people can live in an economy where they strive to be prosperous instead of just getting by. Whereindividuall responsibility is upheld and instead of blaming "The Jews" foreverythingg wrong that happens, the people will blame their certain misfortunes onthemselvess or those who aretrulyy responsible. Where debate is risk-free and innovative allowing their society to progress along with the rest of the world. Where religious tolerance is upheld not just in words, but action. Where all in all, you have a civilized society worth living in.

Hopefully that civilized society will be looked on by the people of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria et all as a motivation to improve their societies in similar manner.
And that is my vision for an Islamic Reformation.

Which in turn rids thepoisonouss mentality that thefundamentalistss feed on. And in turn rids the world of Islamic terrorism. Making us in the west safer. (at least from that threat).

You cannot achieve that by letting sleeping dogs lie, do nothing, and just cross your fingers that Al Qaida won't attack again. The Islamic world needs help, and they cannott do that on their own.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Canadian Soliders=Al-Qaida terrorists?

Apparently if you take the logic of the posters at Rabble. Listen to this idiot:

In other words, we know how many Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan (I think it's 7, right?). But we don't know how many people Canadian soldiers have killed in Afghanistan. Murder is murder. Better to have a killer who admits he's a killer than a killer who deludes himself (and the taxpayer) into thinking that he's a "peacekeeper" or some nonsense like that.

So the Canadian soldiers who killed the Al-Qaida dickheads to rid Afghanistan of its thug-like rulers and make it a better place are no different than the Terrorists who killed OUR troops in the name destruction and worldwide Islamist supremacy!

God! Just renember that next time you hear the NDP supporters label themselves as "Canadian Patriots".
Here is where the dicussion is taking place.

My thoughts exactly:

(Hat Tip: Worldnetdaily)

Strange Priorities (Part 2)

More hypocrisy by the left on its anti-Americanism:

Check out this photo which was taken during a protest to George W. Bush's visit to Canada last December:

Notice the sign "Women's body, Women's Right"

Please!!!! Look, I'm not exactly against abortion, but when it comes to International women's rights, "Progressive" feminists have bigger fish to fry. Where are the feminist outrage over those? Where is the Liberal Women's Caucus? It is afterall very much a "Women's issue". Do you think they will be calling to Canadian Foreign Minister Pierre pedigrew to act upon this? Don't hold your breath.

-For all the boo-hiss noise your hearing about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, just keep in mind that conditions of political prisoners in the Arab world are a hell of a lot worse.So where are the outrages against those? Where is Sacha Trudeau's documentary on those prisoners?

- I've always been angered by the Islamic Scholars' and the Western Left's deafening silence of the daily massacres by Algerian Islamists. Do these killers need to change their flag sign from a Crescent to The Star of David in order to get some emotions going?

-NDP's own Libby Davies labels herself as "the voice of all feminists in Parliament". Yet when Iranian activist Shirin Ebadi has won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize she never even made a speech congratulating her. Yet she never tired of blasting George W. Bush.

It is evident that by focusing so much on the US, Most of those on the liberal-left has lost focus of the bigger issues facing their causes today.

Strange Priorities (Part One)

One thing I continously notice about the Liberal-Left (especially in Canada) is how their Anti-Americanism trumps everything. They will slam the US and its allies on just about anything, including actions that they (once) supported.

Here are a few examples:

-Where is the outrage over bombings like this by "insurgents"? Where are the peacenik protesters who claim to march day in and day out in the name of the innocent Iraqi civilians? The Liberals ironically protest the country fighting these murderers. So let me get this straight...the country that's trying to restore peace and civility in Iraq gets shouted at, while the Islamist terrorists who deliberately kill innocent Men, Women and Children get nothing? It would be funny if we were not talking about people's lives.

-How come when it comes time to denounce Foreign Occupations, there's alot of passion in denouncing Israel, yet barely any in denouncing Syria?

-There was more handwringing in the West over the the Guantanamo Bay "prisinors", basically guys who took arms against Soldiers (Including Canadian Soliders) trying to eliminate Al-Qaida, than there was of the jailing of Egyptian Pro-Democracy activist Dr. Saad Eddin Ibrahim.
Explain THAT to me.

(More to come)

Sunday, July 17, 2005


Welcome to my blog. I'm new with this whole blogging thing, so go easy on me for the first few weeks.

Now my motivation for starting a blog was to get (what is considered to be) my radical views up front and be able to discuss them across the blogsphere.

What are my radical views?

-I am a 23 year old Canadian Muslim of Middle Eastern decent, who is a supporter of George W. Bush and and anti-terrorism efforts.
- I believe that the Iraq war will benefit the Middle East and the entire world in the long-term.
-I support Israel's right to exist (you'll find very few in the Arab/Muslim community in North America who do) as well as its right to protect itself. However I am a supporter of a two-state solution,. But not until terrorism has been eradicated.
-I'm a firm believer in small-government, I believe free markets lead to free people, a strong military makes a strong country, Crime legislation should protect victims and not criminals, and a decentralized Canadian federation. Amazing considering I've spent most of my life in the Province of Quebec, the most left-wing location in the western hemisphere.
-I am a Conservative Party Supporter in a Province where statism is the worshiped god.
-I am a Republican Party supporter in a country where Castro is more popular than George W. Bush.

Further more I believe the Arab and Muslim communities in North America and Europe have done a piss poor job of condemning and distancing themselves from Radical Islam and its preachers. This web site is to show my fellow Canadians that community "leaders" like Dr. Mohammed "Israeli civilians are legitimate targets" ElMasry do not speak for me. Although I cannot guarantee you that the majority of Canadian Muslims fell the way I do. (In fact I highly doubt it).

In this blog , the main niche will be Middle Eastern Politics (wth some commentary on Canadian and American politics every now and then). I will also try to point out the Left's hypocrisy on the subjects of terrorism, the Middle East, US policies, Economics and Foreign Policy.

Hope you enjoy it.