History of the Jihad against Canada (2001 - Ongoing)

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Charles Martel on October 6, 2009 at 21:26

We in the West have no dearth of Artificial Intelligence like the one that captured the London bombers electronically a few minutes before then boarded the tube on their murderous mission on 7/7. Where the Canadian and all other Westerners (except the Israelis) lack is in Natural Intelligence for recognizing the enemy who resides amongst them and to eject or eradicate that enemy as we would do with any vermin afflicting our homes or virus in our bodies.

__________________________


But so far, the saving grace has been that no real big attack has happened. Canada awaits with bated breath its future equations with its growing Muslim population. An attack that would put not just 7/7 in the shade but also 9/11. The Muslim ambition is murder millions of Westerners at one go! And unfortunately for us, they may go about doing that successfully someday soon!


From a howling Jihad, we now have a stealthily creeping Jihad The Muslims of our times invaded Canada through the customs and immigration counters!

The point to be noted is that till the Muslim population does not reach a certain critical mass, the Muslims adapt to the country of adoption. Till then they pretend assimilate the host countries culture, but like to create their Ghettos, away from the mainstream of that country. And when their numbers reach a critical mass, they start what Mohammed started in Mecca, the Razzias or Gazhawats (raids) against the non-Muslims. The plot to storm our Parliament was just the tip of the iceberg of such Razzias. This plot is only the first critical warning shot of the shape of things to come.

There is more to it than meets the eye. Canada needs to watch out, or it would be in real peril, if and when the Muslim population inevitably crosses the more than 10 percent mark. This benchmark has been crossed in France, and we saw the first warning shots in the form of the car burning riots. In the next round the Algerian and Morrocan Muslims in France will try to draw blood from what they derisively term the �White Cheese� when referring to the French.

Learning from the European experience, Canada needs to wake up from its slumber and while it is laudably participating in the War on Terror in Afghanistan, we need to start the same war by deporting trouble-making Muslims of the irascible Imams first, and then move on to deporting all Muslim political activists, and finally all other troublemaking Muslims (in fact most of them are troublemakers).

Those that remain after these purges need to pledge that for them loyalty to Canada is above loyalty to Islam and the Canadian constitution ranks higher than the Quran. If they cannot do this publicly, they should be deported too.

This brings us to the point of asking ourselves �How do Canadian born and bred Muslims end up becoming Unrepentant Murderers who glorify death?�


How and Why do Canada born and bred Muslims end up becoming Unrepentant Murderers who glorify death?

To answer this question we need to know what happens in every Muslim home in Canada (and in fact all across the globe):

Before the Eid-ul-Zuha festival, every Muslim father brings home a baby goat (kid) and tells his child to play with that kid. As days pass, the child grows fond of the goat-kid for some days and when the day of Eid-ul-Zuha comes when the child is shocked to see that his pet goat is slaughtered in front of his entire gleeful and cheering family. The child feels guilty, he cries and asks for his friend (the goat-kid) to be spared. But when the goat is slaughtered in spite of this, and the child is told that this is part of Muslim tradition - the child is bewildered.

After one year round the same time, the same ritual is repeated. Now the child is one year older, but he still has the innocence to play with a pet and grow fond of the pet. When the day arrives, the goat is again slaughtered, and the child is reminded of this being a hoary tradition. The child still feels guilty, but his guilt is now numbed by the words that repeatedly fall on his ears, that this is a qurbani (a sacrifice) and that it is our holy duty to kill.

A year after that the child is again asked to play with a goat and on the day of the feast of Eid-ul-Zuha, he is asked to hold the dagger and help out in slaughtering the goat. The child gradually grows hard-hearted and now starts enjoying this ritual of killing the goat - A Muslim is made!

Islam, Fanatic Islam and Islamic Terrorism

Today many in Canada and also the world over are innocent of how Islam was founded, how it grew and what Islam implies for the future of Humankind. So there are endless debates that Islam is a religion of peace, that all Muslims are not fanatical, and that we need to differentiate between, Muslims and terrorists.

The reading of the story of Islam so far should be enough to dispel the notion that Islam differs from Islamic fanaticism, or that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion. No it is not. It is Islam which gave birth to Terrorism, which started from the evil mind of its founder Mohammed (yimach shmo ve-zichro - may his name and memory be obliterated) and has filtered down to the last follower (Muslim) today. Islam is Fanaticism, it is high time we woke up to this chilling reality.

How Islam prevents Muslims from leaving Islam � Murder any Muslim leaving Islam

Mohammed (yimach shmo�) was a shrewd man who knew that there was always a danger of Muslims deserting Islam and reverting to some other less blood-thirsty religion, so he made it an offense punishable with death for anyone leaving Islam, having once accepted it. According to the Shariah, a Murtad (Muslim Apostate) has to be killed, and it is the duty of a Muslim to kill any other Muslim who leaves Islam.

The murderous Quran is the inviolable word of god

There can also never ever be any discussion on the murderous commands of the Quran, since it is the word of god, or so Mohammed (yimach shmo ve-zichro - may his name and memory be obliterated) told his followers.

Assemble five times a day to swear your loyalty to Islam

To be doubly sure that his flock remains together in to its murderous ken (prison), he decreed that it was compulsory for all Muslims to come together and pray five times during the day. So there wasn�t any chance for his followers to leave Islam and emancipate themselves.

Getting into Islam was a one way street.

Islam was a dead end, where you could enter, (in fact you were forced to enter at the pain of death) , but could never leave, since you would be killed. In fact such was the indoctrination and mass hysteria that Mohammed (yimach shmo�) started, that in a generation or so, the new converts forgot that their forefathers were not Muslims, and in fact in North Africa, they even forgot that they were not Arabs. They forgot that their forefathers were made to submit to Islam at the pain of death.

This sealed the fate of all those who were forced to embrace Islam from ever becoming decent thinking humans ever again.


Only the total destruction of non-Muslim heritage and wholesale slaughter of non-Muslims has got the Muslims Victory

With every Muslim military victory, there was not just a change of ruler, but a wholesale slaughter of those who refused to convert or pay Jaziya. There was also a total destruction of the pre-Islamic culture, educational institution, libraries, etc. The planned and deliberately implemented slaughter of the non-Muslim priestly and warrior class was done to enfeeble the conquered populace so much that they would forget who they were their national and cultural identity be subsumed under a newly imposed Arabized Muslim identity.

This kind of tyranny was never known to the human race, with any other conqueror, like Alexander, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, or even those who came after the Muslims like the British Colonialists, or the Spanish Conquistadors. Yes the Spanish Conquistadors were ruthless, but in spite of all they did to he native Americans, the na�ve Americans still have preserved their memory of they being a people different from the Spanish Conquistadors, not so with the Egyptians, North Africans, Berbers, et al.

Ask any Egyptian who he is, he will say he is an Arab, were the Pharaohs Arabs? Were the builders of the Pyramids, Arab? Ask any Libyan, Sudanese, Algerian, Tunisian, Somalian, who he is he will say he is an Arab. These are people, whom the conquering Muslim Arab, so Arabized that they have forgotten who they are, their national identities have completely been submerged into the Arab Muslim Ummah.

This has not happened with the native Americans or the Maoris or the Africans, in spite of the fact that apartheid was practiced in South Africa. The Arabs as conquerors totally brainwashed at the point of the sword all the conquered people, Arabized and Islamized them at the pain of death.

Knowing all this is relevant today for those who seek to defeat Islam. To do so we have to first understand the depth of depravity in Islam. If the Muslims have to be saved from Islam, then it is not sufficient to conquer the Muslim countries and try to being democracy to them, we have to de-Islamize these people, if they are to be emancipated into civilized beings.

Islam has brutalized them and made them robotic followers and into robotic killers, narrow-minded individuals, despotic rulers, and cruel sadists by following the injunctions of the Instruction Manual of Terrorism (the Quran). This is proven by the bloodied Shiite-Sunni murders that have started in Iraq despite elections, and elections by people who support a murderous creed throw up murders as their legislators as in the case of Hamas and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Islam is a perverted mentality, a mental sickness based on intimidation to convert all non-Muslims to Islam, and to murder if you refuse to convert. And if you manage to save your head, then you have to live under their dehumanizing tyranny and live as non-Muslims (Dhimmis or Zimmis).

The Retrograde Negative Spirit of Islam pervades all across that Islamic civilization(sic). Although to call it �civilization� is a contradiction in terms

The very first verse uttered by that lecherous mass-murderer, the accursed Mohammed-ibn-abdallah was �La Ilah Il Allah, Mohammed ur Rasoolallah� which translated literally would read �No god but god, Mohammed is prophet of god�. In Arabic �La� connotes �No�. So what can one expect from a mentality whose very first of its five principles is based on negativism?

Negativism permeates all through Islam, its attitudes towards all non-Muslims, its use of dishonesty to portray itself as a victim, its murderous intent towards all those who refuse to convert to Islam, its use of any level of cruelty to Islamize entire humankind.

We can save ourselves from this Malignant Madness of Islam, only if we see it through to its grave. The other option is landing in the grave ourselves along with liberty, progress and free-thinking, freedom of speech and scientific advancement, all of which will be become slaves to that Instruction Manual of Hate and Terror � the Quran.

Why is a threat of death the only way to defeat Islam?

Islam was spread with the use of death threats. The defeated non-Muslims were given the choice of Islam or Death. After having been forced to accept Islam through such terminal coercion, the converted people had no way of renouncing Islam. If they did so, they were targeted as Murtads (apostates) and were killed. It is mandatory in Islam for Muslims to kill anyone who leaves the cult. So the converts were forced to remain Muslims. And as this was their fate, then the best bet for them was to imbibe the murderous attitude themselves and impose it on others.

Today although "Islam or Death" is not possible openly, unless you live in Muslim ruled countries of the Islamic crescent like Egypt, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan or in areas contiguous to Muslim majority areas like Malaku in Indonesia, Southern Sudan, Kashmir, North Nigeria.

Muslim converts today are convicts or psychological wrecks like Jose Padilla and Richard Reid

But the Muslims have devised ingenious methods to reach those best suited for Islam, so they evangelize in Prisons, where they can appeal to the dregs of society, or those come from broken families, those who have gone through divorces, or those who have had some heart-breaking personal experience.

It is on the emotions of such unfortunate wrecks and irredeemable convicts that these Muslim missionaries prey like vultures and hyenas to make them join the murderous ranks of Islam. Richard Reid, the Shoe bomber, Jose Padilla are specimen of those who become Muslim today.

The cardinal fact is that across the fourteen centuries of Islam�s existence, it has been its death threat that made people Muslim and it was the same death threat that kept them Muslim. The same death threats are used today to intimate Ayan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie and many others like them to keep them from speaking the truth about Islam.

He who was born by the sword shall die by the sword

Modifying the age-old adage �He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.� We can say that �Islam which was born by the sword shall die by the sword� As it was a death threat that made people into Muslims and kept them as Muslims, the only way these scum can be shaken out of their adherence to the savagery called Islam is a death threat. Not individual death threats as the Muslims hurl today at Hirsi and Salman, but a death threat of extermination through a nuclear holocaust of the entire Muslim population across the globe!

Only when the beastlike Muslims see the determination of a world to do them in, upto their last man and woman, can the Ummah of Islam be smashed.

When the Muslims see that there is no option other than death, if they persist in remaining Muslim, will the fort of Islam be breached and once the first trickle of Muslims who renounce Islam starts, the trickle will turn into a flood and an avalanche that will wipe out Islam.

Yes there will certainly be many Muslims who will try to kill those who renounce Islam, but when these murderers are themselves hunted down with equal ferocity, will the lay Muslims believe that it is safe for them to give up Islam. Then and only then, shall we see Muslims coming over in droves to give up Islam. But this can happen only we seriously hurl and start executing a death threat of mass killing of all Muslims across the globe. There are no soft options here.

Do we have it in us to do that?

The answer decides whether civilization wins or Islam wins!

Permalink Reply by Dag Walker on October 22, 2009 at 5:58

Here's a bit of translated Canon Law I think we might all find worth considering: "That which affects all must be approved by all."

Some people, for reasons of intellectual laziness, physical stupidity, a need to conform to the norm, even from sincere conviction, argue against violence. I, who might well share the first three attributes with others, do not condemn violence outright. I find violence to be, at times and under certain conditions, rational. To refrain from violence when violence is required is immoral and irrational. But before I get excited and punch the guy sitting next to me, let's think a bit about what makes violence a good thing in some instances.

Not scenarios, let's look at our responsibility to others vis a vis violence: A person might rightly judge for himself a case of the use of violence in personal straits, i.e. if he's under direct threat of harm or is some innocent other. Self-defence or the defence of other innocents is legitimate. Hobbes argues in Leviathan that even the condemned criminal, guilty as Hell, has a natural right to fight for his own life. Sometimes it's obvious, and sometimes it isn't. Violence usually involves others, though not always, as is suicide or self-mutilation. Assuming we mean violence against others, how do we decide it? If it affects others, i.e. our others, then others have to agree to it. If we see violence as a matter of collective self-defence, then we have to get the agreement of the collective.

We might well ask who the collective is. There's no good point asking our enemies if we are right to use violence against them. So "we" have to know who we are and who the enemy is. I'm just one guy, so any violence I contemplate had better involve only myself unless I find myself or a nearby innocent in direct threat of immediate and severe harm. And I had better have exhausted all other means of dealing with the situation, such as talking or running away or paying off or -- no, let's not think about that. Let's think about violence regarding jihadis. Do we have any legitimate right to do violence to them?

We do if we are confronted by an immediate physical threat by a jihadi against our person or other innocent. Do we have a right to do violence to jihadis who are a verbal threat or a potential violent threat to us or others? I don't think so, for a number of reasons, one of which is that we as collective beings, i.e. citizens or residents of nations, have given up our right to take the law into our own hands, giving it instead, to refer again to Hobbes, to the objective State. We give up our personal right to self-defence in the face of a concerted jihadi threat to our nations so that we all, if so required, can heed the call of defence against them. Until we are personally confronted by a violent jihadi it's our civic duty to allow the officials of the the polis, the city, to do that which we say we will not do so long as they do it for us: we call the police. The Law is for us all equally, and that goes for jihadis under our jurisdiction. None of us has a legitimate right to go against the fellows who make up our polity. If each of us were a law unto himself, there would be no law at all but anarchy. If I were a law unto myself, it would affect many, and few would agree to me being the final arbiter of my own law's legitimacy. We all stand back and allow for discussion and Reason, for long centuries of thinking and practice and adjustment, i.e. our Common Law or even our Canon Law, to decide for us as coolly and rationally and as dispassionately as possible what is the right thing to do, even if it takes year to come to a conclusion. We have a full system of Justice to work out the minute details of each judgement. It might not be "fair" but it is more or less objective and reasoned, if not reasonable. If the ensuing violence is wrong, then we all share in its injustice and aren't outright murderers. We make a legal mistake, correctable for the next occasion in the learning process, the nature of Law, an imperfect beast.

What, though, if our Law is not universal among us? What if one is "entitled" to some other law and some other justice the rest of us are not allowed? What if there is a law for handsome fellows and a law for you guys? I can claim privilege due t accidents of birth, you might not. Your respect for the law would be diminished, and in fact, there wouldn't be any real law at all, just anarchy and whimsy. The Lords could do murder and the serfs would die quietly. This could even be legal. It could even be agreed to by the majority of people. We could agree to law for others like ourselves, and agree to a legal system different for jihadis. We could have a vote on it, and such could pass handily. defending ourselves could be a crime while being a jihadi with a bomb could be sunnah. We do not have to agree with that. We have a right to self-defence, even if the law says we are guilty as Hell of kuffar. Yes, even if the police say so and the courts say so. Even if most citizens say so in a free election that brings to power jihadis themselves. But that isn't the case, as yet. Only sort of. Further, we have recourse to elections still to remove the dhimmis among our political elite and the right to replace them with democrats and normal people, to use an out-moded phrase. If we lose to jihadis or more dhimmis, then we had our shot at transforming our lives into something better. We still, like the man faced with a threat, have a responsibility to talk or run away or pay off or -- damn, not that-- whatever it takes to protect ourselves and other innocents without doing violence.

We have a right to protect ourselves from harm, which can mean much more than a broken nose; meaning financial ruin, or ruin of our standing in the community, and so on. We have no obligation to run away from our homes just because our neighbourhoods are taken over by aliens with a new and alien law that must apply to us as well. Yes, try fighting that, folks in Luton. The question is when do we fight? When do we say rightly that the state is not our representative and collective force or reason but is our enemy itself? What do we do under such circumstances? Run away!

I mean, one examines ones prospects of success in fighting for the norm, the nature of the agreement of our citizenship in our nations. We didn't volunteer to change radically our systems of government if we live in a place suddenly or even gradually ruled by shari'a. That is a revolution, and not legitimate till it has taken the reins of power and holds them firmly without a likely transfer of authority to another party. It means, unfortunately, that should jihadis take over our nations, and should they control them and not stand an opposition likely to overthrow their rule, they will be "legitimate." Till then, jihadi political control in the West is illegitimate: revolutionary, subversive, and illegal, under some circumstances. If our elected officials do nothing about this? Do we call the police and hope they, like us, are committed to the law of the land rather than to the political fads of the day? What do we do if we struggle for our legitimate rights only to find a Muslim policeman on the doorstep arresting us for "hate-crimes"? OK, look, I'm willing to do a lot of things, but I ain't doing that!

Violence? I don't think me so. As St. Augustine points out nicely, we cannot wage a just war if we can't reasonably expect to win it. It's not prudent or moral to fight with the police unless one is an army. Its wrong to fight if one cannot win because the end will be defeat and many will die for a cause that had no hope of success, meaning al the dead were wasted. Not that it matters to us at this point, but he also argues we should not use more force than is required to win. But this is something I hope we do consider; that winning means more than simply subduing our enemy. Victory means smashing the enemy's will to fight again later. Any war we fight must mean we will not have to fight it again later with the same enemy rested and rearmed. War is a total commitment. It has to be rational. We can't be crazy and possessed of our own desires regardless of others of our own kind. If what we do affects us, we have to ask if it affects others as well, and if so, what that effect is and whether they are agreed to it.

Let's look then at those who do commit violence, i.e. jihadis. We read and see endless nonsense that Islam is a religion of peace, and that jihadis are a small minority of extremists. The violence they do is either agree to by all Muslims affected or it isn't. If jihadi violence isn't agreeable to the majority of Muslims, they are affected regardless. They have a legitimate say in violence committed by fellow Muslims. If they don't say no to jihadis, (not to us via the media,) then we have to assume that they are agreeable to jihadi violence. If Jews aren't responsible for Catholic actions, then I'm willing to concede that Shi'ites aren't responsible for Sunnis. However, I'm not deeply impressed by Muslims who claim they're not responsible for Islamic terror: "Don't blame me, I'm a private citizen and a Muslim." But it's not private citizens committing crimes that interests me: it's Muslims committing jihad that interests me. If one jihadi commits jihad, it affects all Muslims. It's up to them to stop what affects them all.

We in the West are made to fear our own disgusted reactions to dhimmitude. If a jihadi commits a crime, we are told it is our fault. We have no "right" to defend ourselves against this libel. It's at least not prudent to do so. Resistance can lead us to arrest, conviction, prison, and perhaps to Potter's Field.

I'm quite sick of typing at the moment. I will return to argue that we have a legitimate right to defend ourselves from both violence and subversion. Not for now.

Permalink Reply by John Q. Public on December 17, 2009 at 1:41

I'm American, we have had our heads in the sand for too many years. We are awake now, and many more are waking up to the threat of Communism within our Country, I suppose the fall of Russia and the Wall, put us in a coma!

In America the threat from the Radical Islamists are shruged off as not being political correct, while in other Nations the threat is real and in your face...simple they are letting the Communists do there dirty work. When they are done, then Heaven help us all, as Geert Wilder states we are the Last man Standing.

We know what they have been doing, it is not hidden, we are now going to put a stop to this nonsense, once this is over, it will be time to help our Neighbors as we have always done.

Time to multi task, something we do well, first and foremost save our children, then root out the buggers that have used the environmental movement as a vehicle to advance their political agenda. WE know!

National Association of Scholars interview with Holly Swanson the author of set up and sold out.

http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1063

John Q Public