Welcome to the 21st Century, Canada!! Let's all hope that your experience with young Jihadists will be far better than ours in the U.S., or Indonesia, or Spain, or Great Britian, or Somalia, or Israel, or Lebanon, or China, or Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Belgium, or France, or Egypt, or Germany, or Turkey, or Australia, well hell, just about everyone.
Lotsa luck, canucks.

Posted by: localmalcontent at January 26, 2007 9:17 PM

"" ... an extremist leader who has claimed that Canadian troops are only deployed to Afghanistan to rape Muslim women. ""

What he means is that that's what he would do if the situation was reversed. And to him that would be perfectly normal, so he can't imagine anyone else doing any different.

A bit like 'Projection'. Correction, it IS Projection.

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at January 26, 2007 9:41 PM

Classic be-fuddlement when Utopia runs into reality.

How could seperate but equal filled with false love and tolerance reep such grim rewards?

Could the Canadians be confused because they have already submitted themselfs and the Muslims within their borders arn't smart enought to have figured that out yet?

Or are they having problems because they can't find a way to blame President Bush?

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 26, 2007 9:43 PM

Not-so-Tiny Minority Links:

How Many Islamists?

Major Religions of the World

Adherents of militant Islam - 150 million+

Tiny minority of extremists world map

Indonesia Shows "Significant" Support for Terrorists

Posted by: Report at January 26, 2007 10:05 PM

"Questions for CSIS: How many personnel opened a Qur'an in this study?"

Now why would they do that when to read the Koran and then tell anyone what it says can result in a charge under Canada's notorious hate laws, as it appears likely to do in the case of Zacharaiah Anani?

Posted by: templar at January 26, 2007 10:16 PM

The link "Adherents of militant Islam - 150 million+" (posted above) seems a little whitewashed: "Islam had also achieved unmatched advances in architecture, art, law, mathematics, and science."

Yeah, whatever.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at January 26, 2007 10:54 PM

"Questions for CSIS: How many personnel opened a Qur'an in this study?"

My car once stalled and caused a collision. The mechanic looked at the wheels, suspension, brakes yielding no evidence of a problem.

He did however fail to check the engine!

Sound familiar?

Posted by: sounder at January 26, 2007 11:01 PM

A very simple question for CSIS:

What are the specific aspects of the "narrow, literal, intolerant" interpretation of Islam that are different from the "mainstream" interpretation of Islam that radicals reject?

Anyone?

Hello?

Posted by: kamala at January 26, 2007 11:40 PM

It's a sign of hope that CSIS is studying this question at all. I also wonder if they have opened a Qur'an, but let's give them credit that they have identified the key areas of interaction that lead to rapid jihadization -- what they are missing is the nature of the underlying preparation. I think they realise that one cannot be rapidly jihadized in a vacuum; it requires sustained fertilization and a fostering environment before achieving this kind of growth.

Let's hope the next CSIS study looks for the Islamic roots of this fertilization. If they do so by summer, then CSIS would only come out about a year behind the CIA, which is perhaps the best we could hope for. But even the CIA etc. appear to need a more thorough scholarly foundation for their conclusions. Perhaps Robert could give them a bulk discount if they purchase copies of a selection of his works for all their antijihadist operatives and researchers. Perhaps he and Pipes (or a few other good men) could contract to run a course or two for them.

CSIS has had some good people, such as David Harris, the former CSIS chief of strategic planning, who is quite knowledgeable on the subject and who publicly named CAIR as a terrorist front organization. You may recall that CAIR took him to court for defamation but backed down as they went to discovery, almost an exact replay of the case against Whitehead and Anti-CAIR, except that it went faster. If he's still consulting with CSIS, they'll eventually arrive at the whole truth.

This view among muslims that the "war against terrorism" is a "war against islam" (or against "muslims") is indeed rampant, and is indeed a key element of the indoctrination process; the establishment of this paradigm among the Ummah is one of the great successes for islamists in the west. Now, some on this site would also not distinguish between the two, and I don't intend to argue this point, but I will make the point that those IN CHARGE of this "war" (Bush, the army, the CIA, etc.) do not regard it as a war against islam, or against "muslims" in general, nor does any realistic examination of the facts on the ground suggest anything of the sort -- this belief is spread almost entirely by the process of indoctrination among muslims and among left-wing secular ideologues.

Recall Salma Yaqoob's statement in the Pipes' debate: "Do you expect us not to fight back?" -- this, in reference to the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks, after describing them as reprisals for the "war on Islam" about which she was speaking.

Now who, I would ask, does "us" refer to in this statement? Those who carried out these two atrocities, of course. But who might this be (in Yaqoob's mind)? I see two possiblities:

1. "us" means the terrorists, the extremists, the violent jihadis found amongst a broad, moderate, Ummah who are not in league with them. If so, then Yaqoob, who portrays herself as a "moderate" muslim, and is widely accepted as such, believes and declares herself to be on the other side of this fence.

2. The other possibility is that "us" is the Ummah itself -- the worldwide community of muslims. It was not Osama or other terrorists who are culpable, by themselves, for these attacks -- the whole Ummah (in Yaqoob's mind) assumes responsibility for them. And, being a muslim, she regards herself to be part of this group, and thus says "us" to indicate solidarity with the terrorists.

I believe that Yaqoob has the second version in mind. I don't find either version particularly comforting (in fact I would dearly prefer the first, if it was true). I do not think that most muslims hold to the view that there is no distinction between "Islam" and "Extreme, jihadist Islam", but it is very close, by all indications, to 50% in Islamic countries, and even higher in some islamic communities in the west (lower in others).

This phrase "war against Islam" precisely delineates the boundaries of the problem. The moment the struggle against terrorism is spun as a religious war, terrorists are born. And this is precisely why Islamist pedagogues hammer the phrase so repetitively. I've noticed that many muslims are beginning to repeat it as a mantra; they cannot even question the statement; it has become, for them, an axiom, and they hardly even notice themselves using it in casual conversation.

If you want to fight jihad in your own town, I believe this is [currently, at least] the serpent's head: the lie of a worldwide war against Islam. To cut off the head one must counter this very effective "big lie". But the big lie cannot be killed by simply rattling off the facts already well-known to all; these folks are indoctrinated, and all the details are pre-spun for them; a Kuffar has little chance to take them on in casual conversation on these points.

What is needed are clear, pithy, supportable statements that cut to the chase and wake up the mind to the incompatibility between the lie and the facts. What do you say when, in coffee-room conversation, someone (usually, but not always, a muslim) throws out this phrase? I've found that trying to lay out a correct analysis of world events and Islamic teaching to counter the lie is ineffective in this forum, because coffeeroom discussions revolve around one-line quips, comebacks and personal barbs. Any serious or scholarly discussion is instantly derailed.

I've only begun to think through this problem, but here's a start. Assume it is a muslim who uses the phrase, sincerely thinking that it is a "given" in the conversation. Stop him right there.

"Just a minute, Hamid, did you say "war against Islam"? Which war against Islam?"

"The one your [or maybe "our"]country is fighting in XXX" [Iraq, Afghan, Iran, Palestine or maybe all of the above]

"You think this is a war against Islam, and not a war against terrorism?"

"Of course -- look at all the muslims being killed. What did these people do to your people? Why are your soldiers going all that way just to kill muslims? Surely this is a war against Islam"

"Hamid, are you a muslim?"

"Yes, you know that I am"

"And I am a good American [Canadian/Australian/Israeli/etc.] citizen?}

"I think so"

"If my country is at war against Islam, and the objective is to go out and kill all muslims, as you appear to believe, then would it not follow that it is my patriotic duty to kill you? Don't worry, I am not threatening to do so -- but I want you to tell me why, if this country desperately wants to massacre muslims, why go so far across the sea and spend so much money, when it would be much cheaper and easier just to kill all the muslims over here? How many times have you been shot at by our army since arriving here? How many times have you been tortured and brutalized? Does your personal experience jive with your assertion that you are living in a country at war with, and trying to kill, all people like you? Do you think, perhaps, that the fact that you are a muslim has escaped the attention of our military? Do you think the only reason you are not being killed in this war on Islam that you believe in, is because you are too clever to get killed, or because our army is too incompetent to find you and kill you? It seems, Hamid, that your view of reality is missing something very important, and your whole view of world affairs are messed up."

I'm assuming that the long passage "works" in coffeetime conversation because after "it is my patriotic duty to kill you", Hamid's mind is racing and he's trying to figure out what kind of a situation he's just found himself in.

I'd be interested in how this line works around your water coolers, or if anyone else has good "big lie busters" that they'd recommend here?

Posted by: Archimedes2 at January 26, 2007 11:40 PM

This "intel" agency is poorly named if it doesn't realize the simple fact that Islam in general commands people to believe in fairy tales, lies and misrepresentations. Not only that, but it condones all the worst types of human activity-murder, rape, war, slavery- by giving them the stamp of approval from its god. Get life's losers, confused youngsters and the mentally unhinged interested in Islam and you get a natural fit-horrid ideas from the Koran meeting the horrid impulses in some people's minds producing a marriage made in hell.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at January 26, 2007 11:48 PM

this is off topic, but still Cdn news.. in Windsor a Baptist churh is driving the muslims nuts right now.
\they are having weekly meeting with people talking about the koran, islam, and speakers talking about the truth about islam! next week they are having an ex plo terrorist, they cant say his name, but he will be there to speak. l was away a last week and missed the first bruh ha, but will look into this weekend about going to this church meeting. but anyhow anyone in the Windsor area should look into this. with close proximity, border to Detroit, aka Dearbornstan, this area also has a high muslim, terrorist population, and of course an international border should bear hearing about this.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at January 27, 2007 12:00 AM

Another "Intelligence Agency" that isn't so intelligent. Robert's right. Has anyone bothered reading the Qur'an and it's false-prophet, Mo.

Posted by: champ at January 27, 2007 12:03 AM

Champ,

That was Marisol, not Robert. It's getting hard to tell the difference.

Posted by: Stendec at January 27, 2007 12:12 AM

All of the answers to their stupid questions can be found in the mosques of Canada; that's a nobrainer! The vulnerable babes simply inhale the miasma that lingers in the air after every vitriolic diatribe and eventually become intoxicated by the jihad vapor. They experience profound epiphanies, going from bad to worse overnight. Who is radicalizing these innocent young lads? Why their holy imams and mullahs, of course.

As long as rabid, hate-mongering clerics are permitted to indoctrinate the muslim hordes, the jihad problem will continue to worsen. Why is the obvious so difficult to see?

Posted by: Susanp at January 27, 2007 12:42 AM

Islam says from hours 6 to 10,
you must be killing people again.

Here's Omar, he came from afar!
just to kill some people again.

And uncle Ali, from bombing Bali!
loves to kill people again.

And Osama Bin Laden, scraggy and sodden!
fatwa'd to kill people again !

gotta kill,gotta kill,
gotta kill,gotta kill,

That's what Islam says,
from hours 6 to 10 !

Posted by: theoldman at January 27, 2007 12:48 AM

I don't think Canada will invest too much energy in finding and curtailing these new Jihadists as it really doesn't have much to worry about from them. The new generation of suicide bombers will more than likely focus all their energies on their neighbor to the south: the US.

Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 27, 2007 1:39 AM

So, just how "tiny" is the minority? Estimates given in some of the links above vary considerably, from less than 1% to nearly 1/3, and from country to country. I'm wondering if there's any correlation between numbers of extremists and the number of men practicing polygamy. Do any of the censuses in islamic countries report the numbers of polygamous households? Are any of these censuses reliable? Is there any noticeable variation in the practice of polygamy from country?
What I'm getting at is that polygamy inevitably means that a certain number of young men will not get even one wife. These men are going to be losers, and they know it; and their anger and frustration makes them fair game for radical preachers. Why fret about not getting a wife in this life, when one can get the 72 virgins in the hereafter?
So I'm guessing that the greater the number of polygamous households, the greater the number of radical young men. Take a few numbers. In country A polygamy is practiced by only 2% of households, and they average 2 & 1/2 wives each, or 5% of the women. So, 98% of the men are competing for 95% of the women. Not so big a difference, and the expectation is few radicals. Then take country B with 15% practicing polygamy, averaging 3 wives/household. The means 85% of the men competing for 55% of the women. A very big difference, and the expectation is: lots of radicals.
If anyone knows where information on this subject is available, pleas post a link.

Posted by: ebonystone at January 27, 2007 1:59 AM

Actually, with a Tory government that has a clue and our expanded role in Afghanistan, I think we're due for an attack. I wouldn't be surprised if we're hit with a Madrid-style bombing, maybe on the Go system in Toronto, before the end of this year. You've got to figure that the Islamists will eventually try and intimidate the Tories into pulling out of Afghanistan, like the Spanish were intimidated into pulling out of Iraq.

Posted by: OutOfAqaba at January 27, 2007 2:01 AM

how they evolved from radicals to violent terrorists, a process known as "jihadization."

The term is useful, since an unstable phenomenon of waxing and waning seems to pertain to Islam: obviously, Islam is not, and has not been through its history, monolithically static in its supremacist imperative of jihad. Sociologically also, there seem to be various warps and woofs to the texture of Islam: obviously, Muslims are not a monolithically motivated force of militant automatons or a "Borg".

So there is a factor of "jihadization" in the Islamic orbit. The problem should not reflect an Either/Or choice between those who know Islam is monolithically a threat, and those who don't think Islam is a threat at all, but between those who pursue the question of causation to enter the sanctum sanctorum of Islam, and those who do not permit this.

For the former, "jihadization" could be occurring due to factors inherent to Islam itself -- its history, rituals, culture and holy texts.

For the latter, this can never be permitted to be on the table of discussion: the "jihadization" must be occurring for other reasons -- political, economic, and vaguely "cultural".

In fact, "jihadization" seems to reflect the reverse dynamic: the explanation for why Muslims do not "jihadize" -- whenever they don't, that is -- has little to do with Islam itself (except when it might be out of tactical deceptiveness), and much to do with extraneous factors -- political, economic, and vaguely "cultural".

Posted by: remote_control at January 27, 2007 2:22 AM

I don't think Canada will invest too much energy in finding and curtailing these new Jihadists as it really doesn't have much to worry about from them. The new generation of suicide bombers will more than likely focus all their energies on their neighbor to the south: the US.

Posted by: Qualis Rex at January 27, 2007 01:39 AM

No country with muslims is immune to attacks, and Canada has been specifically named as a deserving target by bin Laden himself. I wouldn't be too complacent if I were you; certainly not triumphal.

And when the suicide bombings begin in the U.S., which they surely will, CAIR's first concern will be "backlash" against muslims. They will beseige the F.B.I. with complaints of rampant graffiti crimes while victims of islamic carnage are being buried.

Posted by: Susanp at January 27, 2007 2:28 AM

Archimedes:

'Salma Yaqoob's statement in the Pipes' debate: "Do you expect us not to fight back?" -- '

That statement sez it all. She is a jihadist like every Muhammedan and she knows when she is called upon to wage jihad, she must do whatever she can, because jihad is the 'pinnacle of Islam' and the central duty of every muslim.

The rest of your efforts are rational, based on logic and reason.

You cannot apply this when dealing with the irrational, illogical and blind indoctrinated fanatics that this belief-system produces.

Islam has declared war on us. We fight the 'WoT' like Don Quichote against windmills. The Muhammedans would eliminate us at once if they had the power. It is quite foolish and beyond silly that we don't respond in kind.

We still treat the enemy like a friend. We still allow enemy agents, traitors and agit-props like Salma Yaqoob to weasel and lie, to confuse and obscure, to deflect and to accuse us for what they are doing to us.

Lets round 'em up, lets ship 'em out: Let the deprotations begin!

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/01/26/the-west-islam-appeasement-doesnt-work/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 27, 2007 3:52 AM

Marisol has an obvious unstated conclusion, the step from mainstream to Jihadist is a small one within the Mohammedan world. The Qur'an is a rather violent document and urges everything the violent jihadists are doing. So a rather small push is needed.

That still leaves the devil in details. We also have British youth converted to radical Mohammednas seemingly in a matter of months. What is it that enables this rapid conversion?

A visit to HuffPo may have pointed out the idea. Our extreme leftists are already buying into the propaganda such as cited in the article to which Marisol refers, "Prosecutors allege the suspected terrorists were encouraged partly by an extremist leader who has claimed that Canadian troops are only deployed to Afghanistan to rape Muslim women." So the step for them to feeling more akin to and aligned with the Mohammedans is not a big one. They buy into the lies and then buy into the religion. They probably honestly do believe they are fighting heinous atrocities such as troops only sent to rape women. Their hatred of the right, Bush in particular, blinds them to the utter contradictions of Mohammedan life and the freedom that allows them to spout their villification and hatred for anything Bush or anything self-defensive against Mohammedans.

JD

Posted by: jdow at January 27, 2007 6:33 AM

A couple people in this forum are having a problem understanding the easily observable large quantity of radical Muslims worldwide. This is a 3rd-grade level of observation. Most readers seem to understand this, there are a couple who don't.

#1 There is no tiny-minority link above (that I posted) that quote-unquote "whitewashes Islam" - that particular article is one of the best in exposing the real threat we face.

#2 There is no just "one percent" as an accurate unbiased estimate of the number of Jihadists worldwide. Daniel Pipes, who has studied the matter about 1000 times longer than many readers here, puts the estimate at between 10 to 15 percent.

The purpose is to make a point here, a point many people are not facing, that conservatively, there are probably 250+ Million people worldwide that would like to attack and destroy the United States in the most deceptive, violent, determined way ever known to man if they just had a way to get here. Some people would like put the figure at a higher number. That's fine, let's get the word out.

Posted by: Report at January 27, 2007 6:39 AM

As a Canadian, reading some of these posts, it seems to me that some people forget we are on the same side as our American neighbours. I don't believe muslims see much difference in our two countries, and will happily attack either to strike a blow against the evil west.

Believe it or don't, not all Canadians blame Bush, or America, for everything wrong in the world. The United States is the best neighbour and friend we could ask for. Nor do we all think we are somehow immune from suicide bombers or terrorist attacks. The previous Liberal government under their hapless leader has a lot to answer for, but Prime Minister Harper is cut from a different cloth. Our men and women are fighting and dying over there, in the hellhole of Afghanistan.

All of us, Canadians, Americans, British, Australians, are fighting the same battle.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at January 27, 2007 7:35 AM

Though not new it still works.
There is unity in jihad and "blind" epople in authority still area not able to recocnize.
W#ill that ever change?
http://www.civoc.com/society/2007/01/26/thailand-oh-yes-there-is-unity-in-the-islamic-jihad/

Instead,
PM backs Islam in state schools
(dpa) - Prime minister Surayud Chulanont on Saturday called for Islamic religious instruction at all public schools in the majority-Muslim South.

Posted by: Arnie at January 27, 2007 7:58 AM

The heavy influx of Muslim immigrants is a sight I have seen with my very own eyes.

I have seen pakistanis, lebanese , syrians and so many of them in Montreal , all living on Employemt Insurance and welfare ,althought from their talks it is obvious They are just taking welfare becasue they are getting free money.

I have seen them gather near mosques in dozens but unfortunately do not understand their language but one can easily make out that the conversation is certainly not a friendly toned one.

Canada is digging its own grave.

I read somwhere that Saudis are sponsoring 10,000 students to Canadian universities. Do I need to say anything more? We all know how much studies will take place and how much Islamification preaching will take place.

During the recent Israel -Lebanon war , the Lebanese born but nowCanadian citizesn were evacuated from war zone in thousands by the govt at a great cost to the taxpayers money. Within weeks of the war was over, all of them were back.
It shows where the loyalty lies. They do not pay taxes but suck all benifit of Canada.

This is Canada and if it does not wake up soon ,it may not longer be Christian or an ally of USA becasue one fine day without them realising it ,it will be a mjority Islamic population country and automatically follow Islamic sharia.
Wake up Canada.
Wake up USA becasue some day USA may suddenly find an Islamic country on its border ready to attack it if the immigration of Muslims goes on at such a heavy rate of influx.

Posted by: Indiana_jones at January 27, 2007 9:13 AM

Well, the United States is the "money-bag", in this so-called quest of civilizing Islam, but it won't work; Islam is determined to kill. If their children won't do it, they'll subject their scholars to do it; it's the way Islam works.

They'll use every covert means of deception until they achieve their goal of destruction and then take-over. It's been this way for 1357 years, it's not going away; it's not going to change.

This is the enevitable dicotomy of the United Nations; it'll also be to there destruction too.

Posted by: Jeff at January 27, 2007 9:48 AM

Jeff said this situation will be the destruction of the UN. No, the UN is part of the problem. Right now, the General Assembly has a population of over 150 nations ranging in size from China to postage stamp sized principalities. How many of them are Islamic states? How often does this General Assembly tell the "West" and the US, in particular, to go pound dirt? Back to Canada and our problem: Espousing Holocaust Denial is a Hate Crime in Canada. Islamic Mullahs, writers, etc. regularly engage in this Big Lie. Now, how many of them have been charged with this crime? I would guess that it only applies to non-Muslim Canadians. Remember, some people are more equal than others.

Posted by: JeromeFromLayton at January 27, 2007 10:53 AM

"Canadian intel agency grasps for clues into "jihadization" of youth"

.......is there a test that can be given for evaluating brain deficiency.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 27, 2007 1:12 PM

Report,

The problem is that even if our Mainstream acknowledged the Pipes statistic -- of approximately 250 million jihadists motivated to plot and execute our destruction -- this Mainstream refuses to go along with two other important inferences:

1) Those millions of dangerous Muslims

a) are dispersed all over the globe, including within the West;

and

b) can easily camouflage themselves, due to two factors:

i) sociologically, they blend in with their supposedly harmless and more moderate brethren -- a blending in that we are still ill-equipped to penetrate due to our relative ignorance of Islamic culture as well as to our fastidious "sensitivity" toward Muslims which hamstrings us from doing what needs to be done (e.g., unannounced inspections of mosques, etc.);

ii) ideologically, beyond these 250 million hard-core jihadists, there are millions more who are in various stages of support for the jihadists -- a support that ranges on a spectrum from a "look the other way" passivity more or less flavored with an inchoate "Death to America" and "Islam is being attacked" sensibility, all the way up to actually materially enabling the jihadists with money or hideouts, lying to the authorities, etc.

2) Those millions of dangerous Muslims find powerful psychological inspiration, along with concrete and specific ideological justification, in the same holy texts and traditions that are the the authoritative and dominant core of the same religion of their supposedly harmless majority -- which would indicate that incalculable numbers of the supposedly harmless majority are psychologically and ideologically sympathetic to the jihadists (cf. 1(b)(ii) above); and this indication becomes stronger to the extent that in Islamic culture, holy texts and tradition are much more influential on individuals than they are in the West.

The refusal of our Mainstream to assimilate these two inferences and their implications seriously hinders our ability to deal with the 250 million bent on attacking us, since those 250 million are not conveniently located in one place, nor are they politically aligned with any easily defined nation-states. Never before has the West faced an enemy who is globally dispersed and who belongs to no political entity; when the West was fighting Islam in centuries past, the Islamic enemy was a more tangible foe for two reasons:

1) the West was relatively free of the PC and didn't wring its hands over lumping Muslims together collectively as the enemy;

and

2) the Muslims themselves tended to collect themselves into political entities -- the various Caliphates which, though often at various periods in history splintered into large sometimes internecine factions, still presented a far more coherent and visible entity for us to fight than the amorphously atomized Umma that now permeates the globe like a relatively invisible poison gas.

Posted by: remote_control at January 27, 2007 2:51 PM

Sadly when they did away with the horses, Canadian law enforcement lost a lot of it's brain power.

Posted by: Catawhumpus at January 27, 2007 5:30 PM

Report,

People who cite the one-percent statistic are very often trying to convince the lefties that even if the problem isn't as bad as we fear (10 - 15%), that one percent is still upward of ten million people. Most of those who cite it use it in the context of "even if just one percent" in an effort to make the blind see the danger we face.

Unfortunately, not even another 9/11 will convince some people. They're more likely to blame the Bush administration for "inciting" Islamic violence when we could have just left them alone and they would have sold us their oil and all would have been right with the world. They STILL think that all you need is love.

Posted by: PMK at January 27, 2007 5:38 PM

This is Canada and if it does not wake up soon ,it may not longer be Christian or an ally of USA becasue one fine day without them realising it ,it will be a mjority Islamic population country and automatically follow Islamic sharia.
Wake up Canada.
Wake up USA becasue some day USA may suddenly find an Islamic country on its border ready to attack it if the immigration of Muslims goes on at such a heavy rate of influx.
Posted by: Indiana_jones

Can Canadians sue their guvment for malpractice? Try to get welfare reformed and limited? Maybe you need a huge tax strike in Canada.

The giant "bloodsucking" sound is getting ever louder.

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 27, 2007 6:10 PM

I work in the private security field, and I know what I am talking about. In Ottawa, the largest private guard company is comprised of about %70 muslims. Many of these guards are employed to guard federal government buildings. Personally, I think we are up the creek.

Posted by: Ottawan at January 27, 2007 11:14 PM

As a Canadian I have to say I'm happy to hear that CSIS is at least looking in the right direction.
As long as Stephen Harper is Prime Minister Canada will have a good chance at fighting off any real threats. He as someone above posted is cut from a different cloth and is playing things right here.

My fear is not of my government but of the multitudes of left wing kumbaya types that I live with. I've been working very hard to open peoples eyes here, and I have to say it's been grueling. I can say though that in recent weeks to my surprise I have more and more people starting to listen. It's only taken me about 4 years in this current department I work in to get people to entertain what I've been saying.

Hopefully these small victories will turn into more people talking, and subsequently passing the word.

Let's not forget Canadians as much as they like to think they're different than Americans are not. Americans can be seen everyday on tv bashing their own government, and furthering the cause of the jihadists. Today it was Hollywood back at it with Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon and Hanoi Jane (Once a traitor always a traitor).

Going back to the CSIS statement as discerning as it is that they are playing the political correct card, here in Canada things move slow and at least we are looking at the right people.

Niv

Posted by: The fanatic at January 27, 2007 11:49 PM

I agree, we're up the creek. We're as bad off as Britain. And, say what you want about Harper (not being "liberal"), I think he's caving.

David Frum wrote a column, published in the National Post on the week-end in which Frum also noted the misinformation of the intelligence agencies. It was an excellent article.

Frum explained why M. Arar received 10 million of taxpayers monies. The Syrians have a "thing" out for Sunni muslims (particularly anyone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.) Apparently the Syrian leadership figured it'd be a good think to "go get" Arar since he has a cousin who's a member of the Brotherhood -- and who better to get to go after him, then a western intelligence agency. Just claim "So-and-So's a TERRORIST!!" And CSIS and others are convinced that the Syrians are o so honest, and provide such reliable info.

Well, I figure it shouldn't be Canadians picking up the 10 million dollar tab -- Canada needs to send the bill to Syria, then have Arar go after the Syrians to collect it. Now that would be justice. But, of course, that will never happen. Instead we have the media whining night and day about Arar -- the majority figuring he's a "hero," and he really, really was tortured, and we have his word to substantiate it. Much of the problem lies not just with CSIS but our media -- especially the CBC (the pro-arab, pro-jihadists). Maybe we could skuttle the CBC -- sell it off so we can pay the 10 million.

Posted by: J.S. at January 28, 2007 12:09 AM

In addition to the obvious reason, the process of jihadization in all Western countries, as well as in India, the Phillipines, etc., is also being encouraged by depraved left-wing cynics and naive ignorant liberals; and based on personal experience, it is my impression that Canada has its fair share at least of the latter group. I recently had a discussion with a non-Muslim Canadian who told me that it was the British secret service who planted bombs on London's transport system and then framed four innocent British Asians. This was apparently all done, so that Blair could justify "his" wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The wolf is at the gate and there are plenty of people willing to convince themselves, and others, that it is merely a chuwawa that ought to be let in. This type of self-immolating or decadent psychology reminds me of those Russians (and there were many) who continued to genuinely idolize Stalin even though many of their close relatives were killed or imprisoned in the gulags as a result of his policies.

Posted by: The Northumbrian at January 28, 2007 12:13 AM

OT, The Windsor star's story about the Baptist Church having speakers about islam. l spoke with their people, this coming Thurs and Friday, an ex PLO terrorist, now Christian convert will be speaking both days. Doors will open at 6:30, and to begin 7pm. This church is on Campbell Rd, near the Bridge, (lots of muslims in west end) so l would not be surprised if there is a protest. l hope to attend this talk, and perhaps bring JW literature and Robert's books to pass around. when l spoke with their people they were aware of Robert's new books and his website. So if you are in the area, it is the border city to Detroit would most likely be quite interesting to meet people who want to learn the truth about islam. l will try drag one of my liberal family members.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at January 28, 2007 12:42 AM

"Those who undergo this process of radicalization reject mainstream Islam and instead adopt a narrow, literal, intolerant interpretation, CSIS says."
-- from the article

What nonsense. A "literal" interpretation of the Qur'an (and a "literal" understanding of the gloss provided whenever a little assistance is needed is given by the Sunnah -- i.e., essentially the Hadith and Sira) is what all those in mainstream Islam believe. They are all fundamentalists in the sense given to that word when it was first applied in the early 20th century -- then, to Christian believers in the Bible as containing the literal word of God.

And if "mainstream Islam" is all about the "literal interpretation" then that is necessarily both "intolerant" and "narrow" according to any reasonable definition that any Infidels would accept. The teachings of Islam about Infidels are "narrow, literal, and intolerant." The division of the world between Believer and Infidel is not a fabrication. Availalbe for all to read is what so many intelligent men in the past -- for example, John Quincy Adams and Tocqueville, both of whom had read deeply, knew a good deal of history, and had read about the history of Islam and had also read the texts of Islam, and were not the shallow creatures who rule us all today, or presume or pretend to. Islam does not change; what it was in 1820 or 1840 is what it was today. What does change are not the doctrine and duty of Jihad, but rather the ability of Muslims to pursue Jihad effectively, and the oil revenues from OPEC (ten trillion dollars since 1973), the vast and still largely unchecked Muslim migration into many Infidel countries (chiefly in Western Europe, but also including Canada and, to a much lesser extent, thank god, the United States), and the exploitation by Muslims of Western technological advances that make dissemination of Da'wa and other Muslim propaganda (includiing recruitment for Jihad) much easier -- those audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, and of course the Internet. These three developments explain why Jihad is being pursued here and there and everywhere, and not mainly through military means (qitaal), but rather through other, much more effective, largely unrecognized instruments of Jihad: the money weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

Posted by: Hugh at January 28, 2007 1:46 AM

Where is McGyver when we need him?

Posted by: Hungarian Crusader at January 28, 2007 12:08 PM

"Western technological advances that make dissemination of Da'wa and other Muslim propaganda (includiing recruitment for Jihad) much easier -- those audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, and of course the Internet."

Don't forget cell-phone texting, which electrifies the milli-tendrilled rumor-mongering grapevine of Muslims: a few years ago, for example, a rumor spread like wildfire -- chiefly via cell-phone texting -- throughout East African Muslims: if you shake the hand of an Infidel, your penis will shrink! I can't think of a more preposterous juxtaposition of epochs than that.

Posted by: remote_control at January 28, 2007 12:25 PM

Also, I'd just add that in the Eastern areas -- Saudi land and elsewhere, where there is very little by way of "literacy" -- gossips spreads by word of mouth. In Iraq (without cell phones) there are networks -- oral networks -- whereby "news" is spread -- all through gossip. They say that whoever disembarks from a plane into Iraq, there are spies everywhere and if a likely kidnap victim appears, word is out. (Those imbecilic PeaceMaker Canadians were in Iraq -- that was to protest the war -- and were kidnapped within hours of their arrival.) Cell phones and literacy, may or may not be necessary. Remember, it's at heart an oral culture...(another feature which gives rise to a pre-scientific outlook).

Posted by: J.S. at January 28, 2007 12:43 PM

Re. ebonystone's comments on polygamy: I believe there have been a number of serious anthropological/sociological studies done of the correlations between polygamous practices and level of violence and other social pathologies among the young male population in a given society. There was a fascinating little book called Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches (author's name escapes me) which I read in a university anthropology course way back when; I don't know if it's still in print, but this particular study came to some fairly disturbing conclusions. Besides, anyone who can do a little math can see that given the fact that, give or take a few percentage points, when it's left up to nature alone about the same number of male babies are born as females. Polygamy seems to virtually guarantee that the majority of those male babies will grow up to be non-reproducing, low-status, semi-parasitic drones. It could even be argued that, by some standards, women fare better under polygamy than most men do, not that it's any argument in favour of it. At least a girl in a polygamous society grows up with a reasonable expectation that she will marry and have children, and acquire security and status through these things, even if she'll be only marrying a disgusting old greaseball who already has three wives, who all treat her like dogbarf...but I digress...the point is that nobody who came up with the bright idea of polygamy seems to have thought about what is to become of all those lost boys who never acquire either the power, money, or status to get even one wife, let alone four or ten, other than to use them as cannon fodder, which is actually one of the conclusions reached by the author of the aforementioned book, that human warfare evolved primarily as a means of controlling the surplus male population in polygamous societies that also, paradoxically, valued male babies more than female and thus ensured that far fewer girls survived to adulthood. Woman deficit combined with man surplus = war without end. I'm not saying I conpletely buy this author's thesis, but it is food for thought, isn't it?

Posted by: angloirishslav at January 29, 2007 11:31 PM