Watch out for Canadian terrorists

Seen any Canadian terrorists recently? Better watch out for those Canadians - they can be dangerous.

Probably get it from the bears.

This article is just one of many I want to focus on : Canadian charged in murder of 5 US soldiers in Iraq.

First six words?

"An Iraqi national living in Canada"...

Oh. Ok, so maybe it isn't Canadians generally. I didn't think the ones I'd met seemed that dangerous.

Must be Iraqis then.

But hey - I met some Iraqis too. Not sure they were really a risk.

Oh - the article says more :

"The case offers a glimpse into the murky world of Iraqi resistance fighters who allegedly trolled Arab countries for young, impressionable Muslims willing to give their lives for a promise of Islamic martyrdom."

Ah - I see. Not just any old Iraqis. Muslim ones.

So why does the headline suggest Canadians are a danger? Isn't "Muslim" a more accurate predictor of terrorist tendencies?

Why do so many "newspapers" insist on referring to terrorists as "Asians" or any other designation that disguises the fact that most of them are motivated by their adherence to their understanding of Islam?

What value is a political correctness that dulls us to the dangers around us?

Imagine learning to drive a car by only looking out sideways for dangers. You wouldn't get far. And we try to drive nations like that?

Sure, I know heaps of friendly muslims, as do you.

But let's not pretend that randomness turns hat-toting Canadians into gun-and-bomb-toting terrorists.

In years of yore, they thought that flies and mice arose spontaneously.

We now call that superstition.

Mice and flies arise from specific circumstances.

So too does Islamic terrorism.

Call it what it is, identify how it spreads, and do something about it.

Just stop pretending Canadians or Asians are the problem. Something in Islam is.

Yes, maybe not something in the Islam that Abdul next door practices, but something in the wider range of beliefs called Islam is doing a very good job of encouraging people to blow themselves up to kill non-muslims. Call a spade a spade. These are Muslim terrorists. And they even boast about it, and even tell us that their religious beliefs drive them to these actions.

And don't call it "extremism" either. Forsaking wealth and living every day to quietly serve those dying in pain - that's extremism. That's the kind of extremism Mother Theresa - yep, her again - resorted to. Extremism - even religious extremism - is simply something a long way from the norm, whether good or bad. It's often good. It's often bad. So don't say "Muslim extremists". In fact, from their perspective, you represent extreme evil - hey, that's why they wanna blow you up.

In fact, I could mount a pretty good case that destroying a baby's future life rich with choices, in the name of choice, is atheistic extremism. But you wouldn't want to change your view on that now, would you...

So drop "extremist". Investigate. Enquire. Open mouth to ask. Shut mouth. Listen intently. Don't assume. Ask next question. Whoohoo - now we're getting somewhere.

The Muslims are not all terrorists at heart. Phew! I'm glad about that. Very glad. But the terrorists of greatest risk to us today are Muslims. Let's not pretend otherwise.

UPDATE : Just another of many examples : German man arrested over alleged al-Qaida plot

Righteousness Exalts A Nation - Just Ask Gillard, Clinton and Obama

Gillard sells the CO2 Tax.

"Australia is setting an example for the rest of the world to follow", we're told.

Subtext?

"In centuries to come, Australia will be admired as the country that got the ball rolling, that made the right choice."

Yes, Gillard believes that righteousness - making the morally tough but right decisions - does indeed exalt a nation.

So too does Hillary Clinton. And Obama.

Their latest trumpet blast is a rally to the new crusade against absolute morals in sexuality. Any absolute moral, that is, other than that it's absolutely right to do anything you want with as many other adults go along with it. And absolutely wrong to suggest otherwise.

But behold, this crusade - like crusades of centuries past - is not to be waged in their own borders, but to be exported to foreign lands.

That never asked for it.

Or wanted it.

Yup - crusades2you, no delivery fee.

Courtesy of the US government and its vast diplomatic resources.

Which might just happen to involve at least an inch or two of coercion against foreign countries.

And is explicitly intended to involve leaders forcing unwanted changes on their citizens.

Why this crusade? Why this impulse to spread their particular sexual ideology from sea to distant sea?

Weren't we just told decades ago that colonial England was very naughty when it supposedly crushed poor innocent native cultures, forcing western values in distant lands?

But isn't this exactly the same?

Identical, in fact.

But hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The goal has never been "protecting the helpless from foreign culture", but rather "forcing Humanistic values on others". See, a lot of the old English values were, well, just too Christian. Not acceptable, sorry. We're happy to colonise foreign minds, with taxpayer funds and coercion as needed, but it better be the religion of Humanism we're promoting, or at least, not Christianity, whatever you do, for gawd's sake.

But I digress.

See, Hillary and Obama believe they are saviours, that the world will see them as virtuous leaders - like Martin Luther King and others before them.

That in decades and centuries to come, the names Clinton and Obama will be uttered softly, and evoke a thrill of hope and confidence.

And not just them, but America. The America they led. The America that shoved homosexuality down the world's throat. Will be remembered as a saviour for the world.

In decades and centuries to come, people will say, "How was it that people survived in the early 21st century? Times were so barbaric! We're so grateful that America stepped up and taught the world how to think and act the right way."

The right way.

See, embracing homosexuality is "the right way".

I've not seen Hillary ever explain once why.

But supposedly it is.

Maybe she's a goddess or something? Maybe we should just take her word on blind faith. At least we can see her, unlike y'know like this Yahweh who's invisible.

But note it well : promoting acceptance of homosexuality is morally right, saith she.

As morally right as embracing religious tolerance. Even more morally right than embracing religious tolerance, because religious tolerance requires tolerating those who disagree with homosexuality, and we can't allow that.

It is the right thing to do.

Repeat that, say, hmmm, 100,000 times.

Here - I'll help you. Let's just get all the mass media parroting it too.

There - that's better.

Oh - and if anyone ever disagrees, see to it they're removed from office, so it looks like no-one of any consequence disagrees.

Yeah - cool. We're well on our way to 100,000.

See? You believe it now. Or if not, just say it a few more hundred thousand times.

Homosexuality is morally good. Not.

But see, Clinton and Obama believe it.

And now Gillard, pretending she cares about marriage, acts like she's simply a victim of her party - the Australian Labour Party - which has elected to make "homosexual marriage" national policy.

Poor Gillard - I'm sure she desperately wanted to defend marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman. Y'know, that's probably why she's the first Australian Prime Minister with a live-in boyfriend instead of a spouse. Yeah...

But the key take-home point is this : righteousness exalts a nation, and Gillard, Clinton and Obama all know it.

In their deluded imagination, they honestly believe that future generations will look back and think of Australia and America as great, because of their stance for CO2 taxes / homosexuality respectively.

Their morals are are immoral, but they believe them to be right - i.e. righteous - and they believe that this very righteousness will leave them and their nations exalted in the eyes of history.

Righteousness does indeed exalt a nation. And even atheists instinctively know it.

The question is : what is true righteousness?

The verse continues : "sin is a reproach to any people".

Clinton clearly defines sin : opposing homosexuality.

But her definition is mistaken. Grossly in error.

In her quest to exalt herself and her nation, she strives to earn reproach. She will be remembered. For a while. But not as the saviour she thinks.

More bloodlust from the religion of piece

Despite Australian naivety, the religion of piece has some systemic issues. Y'know, the "tread our line or we'll tear you to pieces" kind of thing. Very moderate. Very pluralistic. Very humanitarian.

This time, a 17-year old fella is bashed to death in school during school hours, by his muslim school teacher and a few muslim schoolmates. For displaying two crosses he was wearing on his person.

The fact that Abdullah living next door in suburban Sydney denounces violence doesn't mean Abdu's a muslim and these Egyptian dudes are just schizophrenic freaks - any more than it means those Egyptian dudes are muslims and those "moderate" muslims around you are freaks. Newsflash : they're all muslims.

It's just some take their holy book more seriously. Which ones, you ask? Now that's a good question...

Uni students do a 180 on abortion

There's a new movie out called "180". Worth a watch.

A wide range of uni students are interviewed one-on-one or one-on-two, and go from pro-abortion to pro-life and pro-adoption.

What changed their minds?

Find out : 180movie.com

All we need is love, Google-style (pro-homosexuality)

So I'm a little behind the times, but I just found out today that Google, my favourite big tech company in the world, is in favour of the destruction of society's most basic instution : marriage.

A little extreme, you'll say.

Here's a one-liner version from their blog :

we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love

For such a smart company as Google, this statement is jam-packed with dumb assumptions :

Fundamental rights?

If it's all relative, then there's no such thing as a "fundamental" right - or are Google themselves "fundamentalists" of some kind? Watch out for those extremist fundamentalists like Google.

Or if it's not all relative, and there are such things as "fundamental" rights, then its obvious that there might also be a "fundamental" definition to marriage. Y'know, like one that maybe, perhaps, excludes homosexual partnerships.

Should not

And then of course there are strange assertions like "should not". By what law? Who says? A lot of people I know aren't too keen on being told what they should do with their life. "Should not" sounds a lot like moralising. Has Google supplanted Yahweh? I think they'll find they're not quite as ready for the task as they think...

Eliminate

By definition, if there is such a thing as a "fundamental" right, it is fundamental. It is impossible to eliminate. You can transgress (violate) someone's fundamental rights but you can't eliminate them.

For example, I have a right to my laptop, and if the government decides to pass a law banning laptop ownership, then I do not lose my right of ownership - the government is transgressing my rights and hence abusing its power.

You can eliminate non-fundamental rights. A non-fundamental right is granted by human will, and it can be revoked by human will.

But a fundamental right, by definition, is not capable of being eliminated.

Whatever their sexuality

Paedophiles, anyone?

Bestiality?

Like, if Google wants to be consistent, why aren't they campaigning for equality for people who want legal recognition of their sexual relationship with their pet goat?

They're not consistent. So they're either blind, or they're pulling the hood over our eyes, and the issue isn't at all what they claim it to be.

Right ... to marry

I have a right to be identified as a Black American. I feel like a Black American. Ok, so my skin suggests otherwise, but it's bigotry and discrimination to say I'm not a Black American, when clearly I am one. I feel like one.

"Wait a mo", you say, "Black American by definition excludes white boys like you". You have a point.

Marriage also by definition excludes homosexual unions.

The Person

Dude - how bigoted and antiquated you are. You need to seriously catch up with the times. Why settle for one? I quite like my threesomes.

And hey, the PETA folk will tell you that pigs are people. Humano-porcine sexual relationships must also be recognised, unless you're an intolerant fascist prude.

They Love

Awwww - all we need is love. That legitimises everything.

Like sex with my 12 year old neighbour.

Well, seriously, try telling her she shouldn't.

Maybe Mohammed wasn't so bad after all, sexually penetrating his 9 year old wife. So long as it was love.

Pity of course that love changes so fast. On again, off again. But that's what divorce is for.

Hey, might as well just give people temporary marriage licenses they can optionally renew - better than forcing people through the hassle of divorce when love takes its random course in another direction...

But seriously, if "marriage" is so unfundamental that we can redefine it from heterosexual to anysexual, it really is a bit extreme to exclude non-sexual and lifelong friendships. Y'know, Harry and I are housemates, and find each other quite agreeable, and really would rather never go through the hassle of finding another housemate. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing "between us" - you catch my drift - we're definitely just mates, in the best Aussie sense of the word. Good mates. He's a good bloke, and so am I. We just wanna, y'know, have some kind of recognition for our commitment to mateship.

We really care about each other. That's gotta be love, you agree?

So marriage it is then, for Harry & I. And Brigette, when you finally drop your prudish two-party restriction.

What now for homosexuals?

It's clear that there's nothing inherent to marriage itself that homosexuals need in order to "enjoy" their homosexuality. Marriage inherently is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is inherently not so.

I don't call my love for icecream "marriage", but somehow that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of icecream, and I don't see it as a matter of equality. Homosexuality is no different.

So why all the fuss to pretend that the fundamental definition of marriage is not quite so fundamental when perceived new rights are?

The answer is clear : the agenda is to reshape society into a utopia that sheds all vestiges of Biblical morality. Others have tried and failed but people keep on trying. Strange they're so utopian when they deride all concepts of "heaven" - they are themselves believers, they just think they're the gods who'll make heaven on earth.

Sorry Google - nice sentiment, no substance.