Sunday, June 04, 2006

Canada Awakes

Be sickened. Be frightened. Be angry. But don't you dare be shocked.

Unless you've been had.

Either way, the time has long passed for domestic bliss born of ignorance, virtue and wilful denial.

For everyone who thought Canada could cower in a corner of the planet, unnoticed and unthreatened by evil men — even when the most menacing of a very bad lot has twice referenced this country as a target for attack — take a good, hard look at what's been presented and what's being alleged.

So begins Rose Dimanno's hard slap across Canada's heretofore complacent face. Seventeen muslim men, many of them Canadian citizens, arrested trying to take delivery of three tons of ammonium nitrate - enough for three Oklahoma City bombs. In Toronto. National daydream over.

So what has Canada done to suddenly become a target for Islamic terror? Canada has sent no troops to Iraq, and its leadership was and still is harshly critical of President Bush. And who could forget the diplomatic subtlety of M.P. Carolyn Parrish's charming remarks? "Damned Americans. I hate those bastards." Isn't that the same thing that Osama says each night after his prayers? Why, who could hate Canada? Nice, boring, tolerant Canada?

Welcome, Canada, to the world of Islamic jihad, where indiscriminate murder is a sacrament worthy of admission to Heaven. Did you really think that if you just pulled the covers over your head the monster in the bedroom would leave you alone? You're a free society, for God's sake! Evil thrives where it can move freely about. And this particular evil is about destroying that freedom. It is the West that is target of radical Islam, and much of the West has chosen to cower before it. We "damned" Americans have not. Nor will we.

Well, Neighbor, here is your wake up call. The real "bastards" have arrived. Will you stand up now for your freedom, Canada? Or will you hit the snooze button and hope the bogey man just goes away?

Think fast, though. Time's against us.


portia said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
portia said...

(Sorry. Me thinks Blogger is in need of a "maintenance" time out.)

Good article. Sadly, you're dead right: no country in the West is safe.

Canada may be hiding under the covers with what's going on within its borders, it's lax travel restrictions, sending alleged terrorists across the border to the US instead of proecuting them (I'll have to find the link), etc. but whether or not Canada joined with us to topple Saddam, IMO, has little to do with Islamo fascists wanting to blow up the CT tower.

Canada committed its troops to Afghanistan in 2001 when we went after the terrorists responsible for 9/11. In fact, Canada just confirmed its willingness to keep its troops in Afghanistan for another 2 years. It just didn't choose, along with the vast majority of Western nations, to support the US in its version of a "necessary" war. Does that make them soft on terror?

BTW, Canada, didn't send troops to Vietnam either. Did that make them soft on Communism?

As I see it, the fact that Canada, who does not have troops in Iraq, is being targeted by al Qaeda reminds me once again that the WOT is so not about Sadddam/Iraq.

I wonder if Canada will follow the US and see the wisdom of slashing its anti-terror funding this year?

spd rdr said...

As I see it, the fact that Canada, who does not have troops in Iraq, is being targeted by al Qaeda reminds me once again that the WOT is so not about Saddam/Iraq.

I'm going to try to be gentle here, old friend, but pardon me if I fly off at the handle.

Canada has troops in Afghanistan, and therefore are enemies of Islam - at least according to the twisted minds that have chosen themselves to speak for those hundreds of millions who follow the teachings of Allah - 21 of whom were massacred by their brethren just this morning. According to these so-called religious teachings, Canadians, like all citizens of the West, and irrespective of their religious beliefs, are mere infidels and must be killed. Talk about your "inconvenient truths."

You have chosen to separate U.S. actions in Afghanistan and Iraq as if they were the World War II Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operation. Whereas, (supposedly), the US was justified to go after the Taliban as a genuine target for the WOT (a truly loverly bunch of blokes, just making their way past the influx of an unhealthy Western influence by murdering pregnant women whose ankles were seen in public), Iraq, somehow, is relegated to being merely a exercise in imperialistic "nation building," oil grabbing, or perhaps simply the expression of one family's revenge for past slights. The war is not directly related to the WOT because… because… oh, yeah! Saddam did not personally fly the planes in the World Trade Center!

Such national naivete, while comforting in its simplicity, cannot survive a war that, if not immediately addressed, may, if we're lucky, take generations to resolve. And if we're not lucky? Then Al Gore's global warming warning will be the least of our worries..

Recognizing what this "war" is all about: the destruction of Islamic fundementalist terrorism prior to it destruction of economic/ iconic America, what are our choices to make US citizens "feel safer?" Can we round up every Muslim and put them in camps? Can we make every Muslim wear a Crescent on his or her clothes so that we can easily identify them as threats to the state? Can we deport entire communities based upon their religious beliefs? No? But isn't that the entire goal of national policy? To make you feel safer, irrespective of the cost?

Of course not. This is a country founded upon the principles of capitalism - chiefly among them the idea of risk v. reward. Do we want to so sacrifice our liberty at home that our personal freedom becomes not worth the effort to protect any longer? Or do we so love our freedom that we will risk out lives to protect it? I know of uniformed population where the answer to the latter question is always a resounding "YES." But as so much of policy is political, where do we find the middle ground? What is the general public willing to sacrifice? What is the risk? Warrantless wiretaps, perhaps? What is the reward? A greater sense of security, perhaps?

What do you want, America? Your cake? Or to eat it too?

Let's entertain the long perspective for a moment…"long" being as in after I'm dust, but while my kids are still breathing.

Is it (based upon a long view) so "dumb" or "arrogant" to strategically insert ourselves (and our democratic principles) into a despotic country, centrally located in a confused and violent region, to wage a multi-front war to (1) free the minds and hearts of a subjugated people, (2) press a continuing skirmishing action to keep al Qaeda's bloody murdering head down, (3) inject and and maintain a close ordered military presence in this totally f*cked up and socially backward region so as to curb the ambitions and excesses of militant theocracies. Ironically, such US presence serves as much to provide regional stability for the flow of oil to the formerly socialist (and now roaring capitalist) societies of China and India as it does to spread democracy and improve the lives of those still swaddled in the cradle of civilization.

Granted, this is a long view; a vision of a hard march replete with uncomfortable demands that America, seemingly, has no stomach for, or to which the nation is utterly blind.

I've gotten very old here lately, listening to people at home gripe about how f*cking bad they've got it here at home, and how "out of control" the situation is in Iraq. I suppose I could go off and rant about the incredible short-sightedness of a media-driven public that has no vision beyond next week's "American Idol," but that would be too easy a target.

Instead, I'll ask a simple question: If George Bush was impeached tomorrow and Hillary was crowned Supreme Queen of the Land, would al Qaeda stop its terror? Would the Imam's of Islam lay down their jihad? Will Iran lay down its nuclear ambitions to wipe Israel off the map? (Which, by the way, will never happen. Israel long ago adopted the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive "diplomacy by other means." It is truly stupid to think that Israel won't turn Teheran into a sheet a glass if it has the slightest inkling that Iran will launch against it.)

If you don't have the answers, then you don't have the answers. Like the rest of us.

But, who are you going to trust with your life?

portia said...

I'm saving my response to this for another day when the waters are less-um-choppy.

Did you stop smoking today?

camojack said...

First of all, who says they planned to use the stuff in Canada?

Huh, huh?!