Blue Scare Alert: Harper Not"Reviving Nazi Fascism" but Maoist Fascist Says He Is

Found Him

In 2008, Supersize Me creator Morgan Spurlock -- significantly lighter than when he completed the aforementioned work -- produced a documentary entitled Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden?

A deeply intertextual work, WITWIOSL references Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego, MC Hammer, and Predator, the film essentially poked fun at the US' inability to find Osama Bin Laden.

Well, it's been two weeks since the world got the news. They found him.

They caught, and compromised to a permanent end, Osama Bin Laden.

It's interesting to watch Spurlock stumble through his facetious documentary. Many of the things that seemed acceptable in 2008 would be considered taboo today. For example, Spurlock notes that Bin Laden mentor Ayman Zawahiri was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood sicne he was 14 years old.

If he made the film today, Spurlock would likely be sworn by his far-left brethren to insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate Muslim organization, despite the fact that they seem to have produced lunatics like Zawahiri on an ongoing basis.

Spurlock isn't wrong about everything in the film. He's certainly right to draw attention to the US' support of dictators such as Hosni Mubarek, noting that the United States has spent billions propping up such oppressive governments decades after teh Soviet Union ceased to exist. Interestingly enough, one would expect that Spurlock and Ron Paul would find a few things in common, if the very thought of it wouldn't likely disgust Spurlock.

The relationship of the United States with the Middle East will always be a complex one. The "blame America" ethos adopted by Morgan Spurlock and his contemporaries doesn't make it any easier to understand.

Just as Spurlock insists the War on Terror hasn't made anyone safer from terrorism, there's little reason to think the death of Bin Laden will make the US any safer from terrorism, particularly with the Taliban claiming responsibility for a "revenge" attack.

Even so, the killing of Osama Bin Laden seems like justice. Others may disagree, but they are wrong.

Rest in Peace, Motherfucker

Osama Bin Laden killed in Pakistan

Reports coming out of Washington, DC indicate that US and Pakistani special forces pulled the trigger on Osama Bin Laden today.

According to Obama, the beginning of the end for Bin Laden was nearly a year ago, when intelligence regarding Bin Laden's hiding place came to light. After a year of careful investigation, surveillance, and close contact with Pakistani counter-terror forces, the time was judged to be right.

Bin Laden's death may offer closure to many of those whose family members were killed on 9/11, but it's pivotally important to remember that this does not render closure on the war on terror.

While Pakistan's involvement in bringing Bin Laden to justice is reassuring in terms of underscoring their commitment to fighting terrorism, there is still much to be done.

The Taliban must still be defeated in Afghanistan. Al Qaida needs to be finished off. Hamas and Hezbollah must be next on the chopping block. Last but not least, terrorist-funding regimes in Libya and Iran must be shuffled off into the good night. (Fortunately, the citizens of each country will do this on their own if provided the proper support and encouragement.)

It's not over. It won't be over until the defeat of the Islamist movement Osama Bin Laden led is remembered as his legacy.

Total War... It's Hard on the Kids

Apparently "young adult invasion" is actually considered a literary genre in some corners.

Written by John Marsden, Tomorrow: When the War Began is a novel, set in Australia, pitting a band of teenagers against professional soldiers for the control of Australia.

The film opens in very WB-esque fashion, with Ellie Linton (Caitlin Stasey) and six firends camping in a secluded corner of Australia. Upon returning to their homes, they find their families missing, the power shut off, and the phone lines dead.

In time, they learn the harrowing truth: Australia has been invaded by "the Coalition", a group of Asian countries (which may or may not include China). Their families are being held in internment camps.

They eventually learn via radio broadcasts that the Coalition has invaded Australia for its territory. They eventually conclude they really have only one option: fight back.

It's a remarkably similar scenario to that presented in Red Dawn: one in which an ordinary day at school is suddenly interrupted by the landing of Soviet paratroopers in the schoolyard. The mid-western United States has been overrun by a communist invasion.

Former football hero Jed (Patrick Swayze) lead a rag-tag collection of teenagers to become a battle-hardened guerilla unit.

Throughout each film, the horrors of the war take a deep psychological toll on the youths. In Tomorrow, Ellie nearly kills stoner Chris Lang (Andy Ryan) when he falls asleep while he's supposed to be keeping watch for Coalition patrols. In Red Dawn, Robert (C Thomas Howell) sends the surviving members of their unit -- those not killed by enemy action or killed for betraying their friends -- back across allied lines without himself and Jed, noting that the two of them are "all used up".

In Tomorrow and Red Dawn each group has at least enjoyed the benefit of ever having had the opportunity to be kids. Many of the youths involved in total wars today are not nearly so fortunate.

Total war, of course, is the condition of all-encompassing warfare between two groups. Throughout Africa, many ongoing civil wars -- including the ongoing conflict in Libya -- are total wars. There is no real distinction between combatants and non-combatants: everyone is a target.

The psychological effect of total war on children is undeniably striking. But if the west thinks that total war is only an issue in the most remote reaches of Africa, they're wrong.

There are forces waging total war against the western world today, and they very much are recruiting their own children in their war against the west. Al Qaida and the Taliban have press-ganged young girls into cells of suicide bombers. In Pakistan, "suicide bomber" has become a children's game.

These cells of child terrorists can't strike at the west in our backyards -- just yet. In the meantime, Al Qaida and the Taliban have settled for using these suicide bombers to target and intimidate their own people.

Just imagine what the total war Al Qaida and the Taliban are waging against civilized values are doing to those children.

Regardless of whether the war would actually be fought on US soil, Australian soil, in Africa, or in Afghanistan and Pakistan, total war is always hard on the kids.

Let's Give Them Something to Cry About

Turn George Galloway away at the border

Following an extremely suspect ruling suggesting that political interference was involved in a decision to declare former British MP George Galloway inadmissable to Canada, Galloway has declared his intention to come to Toronto this weekend to deliver his planned-2009 speech.

Galloway clearly aims this directly at Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

"I'm coming to get you with my arguments, Mr Kenney," Galloway crowed. "I'm going to establish either that you're a fool or that you're a knave -- in any case, that the people of Canada deserve better than you."

This is amusing coming from someone whose own constituents judged him to be a fool, a knave, and scum (quite literally chanting at him as such) and decided that they deserve better than him.

And they do.

Speaking in advance of his visit, Galloway continued his personal practice of mendacity.

"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a terrorist or a security threat to Canada or anywhere else," Galloway insisted.

If only it were so. When George Galloway handed over more than 20,000 Pounds Sterling to then-(and now) no-longer Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, he gave those funds (including a portion he described as his own personal money before the British Charity Commission), he gave that money directly to a terrorist organization.

That's a threat to the security of Gaza, and unlawful in Canada.

Moreover, questionss about why he didn't donate these funds to the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Doctors Without Borders or any other internationally-recognized and transparent organization were answered rather immediately when Galloway crowed that his contribution wasn't about charity -- it was all politics.

It's these facts alone that render the recent decision by Justice Richard Mosley counter to law, and should be simply disregarded by the government.

Mosley ruled that no decision to refuse to admit Galloway had never actually been made, as Galloway did not present himself for admission. However, he did claim that the government had alledgedly made a decision directing customs officials to turn Galloway away based on political criteria.

In other words, Mosley disregarded the role of the judiciary -- to judge the law based on objective criteria -- in favour of making a subjective judgement.

When George Galloway presents himself for admission, the Canadian government should promptly put him on a plane back to Britain -- right after collecting Mosley's resignation -- and let Galloway's supporters cry Canadians a river.

Medal of Honor: Digital Dilemma

With Medal of Honor set for release in less than two months, the most recent edition of the game is becoming more and more controversial -- and for good reason.

The game is set in the ongoing war in Afghanistan. More shockingly, the game's multi-player mode allows players to assume the role of the Taliban and fight NATO troops.

It's a provocative and challenging element of the game, and has naturally elicited some strong reactions from political leaders in countries currently involved in the war.

"The men and women of the Canadian Forces, our allies, aid workers, and innocent Afghans are being shot at, and sometimes killed, by the Taliban," fumed Defence Minister Peter MacKay. "This is reality. I find it wrong to have anyone, children in particular, playing the role of the Taliban. I'm sure most Canadians are uncomfortable and angry about this."

Britain's Minsiter of Defence, Liam Fox, took an even stronger stand; he wants the game banned, or at least boycotted.

"At the hands of the Taliban, children have lost fathers and wives have lost husbands," Fox spat. "I am disgusted and angry. It's hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game.

"I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product," he concluded.

A certain level of disgust with Medal of Honor may well be warranted.

Call of Duty: Worlds at War has already taken the nearly-unprecedented step of allowing players to play as Nazi Germany during its multi-player mode. It goes without saying, however, that it's no longer the 1940s, and that Canada is no longer at war with Nazi Germany.

(Thanks to Canada and its World War II allies, Nazi Germany no longer exists.)

In an electronic medium that has already allowed players to play as the most evil regime of the 20th century, it was only a matter of time before they had the opportunity to fill the shoes of the some of the runners-up.

Banning or boycotting Medal of Honour isn't really the answer.

For one thing, if the game presents an honest depiction of the Taliban and its tactics, the game could remind those who play it of exactly what is currently being fought in Afghanistan: theocratic tyranny at its most savage.

A suitably honest depiction of the Taliban will make it difficult for even today's tuned-out generation of video gamers to turn a blind eye to their true nature.

It's worth repeating that in the storyline mode of gameplay, the Taliban will remain the villain. Left-wing peacenik fantasies don't translate very profitably into combat-oriented video games.

Playing as the Taliban in multi-player mode wouldn't symbolize any sympathy for the Taliban or its goals. And for the prospect of turning video gamers on to the resolute evil of the Taliban, it's well worth the perversity.

The Canadian Left Adopts Immigration as a Bullying Tactic

Immigration has beocme the left's piggy-back issue

In the United States, immigration has become the ultimate hot-button issue; perhaps more than ever previously.

In states bordering Mexico, crime rates -- including violent crime -- have been drastically inflated by the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States. Among the desperate men and women who simply want to come to the US to work and prosper, criminal gangs and drug cartels frequently sneak across the border to set up shop.

In a fit of desperation, the state of Arizona passed legislation that would allow state law enforcement to enforce already-existing federal immigration laws, albeit with a higher standard of jurisprudence.

The Barack Obama administration promptly moved to prevent the Arizona immigration law from being enforced. Democrats have since confessed that Obama won't secure the border in order to keep support for comprehensive immigration reform alive.

But the political tolerance for illegal immigration goes much further than that. The far left has long realized that they can use the immigration issue to piggy-back their agenda onto the institutions of the state.

In Canada, a case in point is provided by a recent article published in the Tornto Star, in which a key element of the left's agenda -- universal child care -- is demanded by an immigrant group, and described as a "fundamental right".

“It is medieval to think that child care is just a sop to some special interest group,” says self-described "community activist" Uzma Shakir. “It’s a fundamental right. You can’t have rights as a woman if you don’t have child care.”

“This should be our priority as a group when we are talking to the government about poverty reduction,” she continues. “You cannot reduce poverty if women can’t work.”

The subject of the story is the South Asian Women's Rights Organization and their campaign for universal child care.

The group aruges that many immigrant women in Canada are prevented from working by child-rearing responsibilities, and that the only answer is for the government to impliment universal child care.

Interestingly, their test case is an accountant from Bangladesh, who apparently never considered telecommuting or working from a home office in order to ply her trade while still being able to care for her five-year-old son.

It's a sobering reminder of the attitude such groups take toward individual responsibility -- their clear preference is for government action, and their tactic is to exploit the vulnerability of recent immigrants in order to expand government activism.

As the example of the United States shows, the best way to do that is to expand the number of recent immigrants to Canada. Moreover, the more desperate those immigrants are, the more likely it is that they'll be able to provoke the kind of public sympathy needed to justify such a broad expansion of government activism.

A current Canadian case-in-point is that of a boatload of Tamil refugees recently arrived in Canada.

In a paragraph-long statement passed off as an article by Rabble.ca, Shakir declares that "our best strategy is to follow our humanitarian principles and due process."

For leftists such as Shakir, the best-case scenario is that Canada would accept as many of these Tamils as possible.

Yet there's a dark spectre underlying the matter: among the legitimate refugees from the violence and chaos that continues to reign in Sri Lanka are, almost certainly, Tamil Tiger terrorists.

Vic Toews, Canada's Minister of Public Safety, has suggested that the Sun Sea may be a "test boat", and that more vessels like it may follow.

Kevin Libin has raised a possibility worthy of consideration: that Tamil Tigers may be attempting to set up a "government in exile" in Canada.

The probability that Tamil Tiger terrorists are among the Sun Sea's passenger manifest is remarkably high. Less than one year ago, two dozen of 76 Tamils arriving under similar circumstances were suspected Tigers.

Shakir is right to note that humanitarianism and due process are key watchwords in matters such as these.

The problem for Canadian due process is that it's far too lax; vessels such as the Sun Sea are attracted to Canada because the number of migrants Canada is likely to accept is far higher than in any other western country.

This indicates that if these Tamils were to attempt to claim refugee status in Britain, France or the Untied States, they would be screened much more vigorously, and more Tigers would be separated out and marked for deportation -- not that Canada's deportation processes aren't fraught with issues of their own.

In the meantime, the Tamil Tigers are known to terrorize and intimidate law-abiding Canadian Tamils into financially funding their efforts in Sri Lanka.

It's details like this that make the far left's tactics in regards to immigration all the more irresponsible.

Simply put, the far left attempts to adopt immigration as a bullying tactic against conservatives. If conservatives decline to support out-of-control government activism, they are accused of being anti-immigrant, or racist. If conservatives campaign in favour of stronger immigration controls, they are accused of the same.

This despite the detail that it was conservatives -- under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker -- who ended the consideration of race as a decisive factor in immigration decisions.

From Arizona to Ontario, the far left is attempting to use the immigration issue to piggy-back their agenda onto a deeply divisive issue and bully conservatives out of the debate.

Unfortuantely, this is often to the detriment of the immigrant communities they claim to be supporting.

Don't Forget Iran, but the Real Nuclear Threat Will Be Pakistan

In 1995, Crimson Tide presented a scenario to the world that seemed alarmingly possible.

Following the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia had done a poor job of securing its nuclear arsenal. With Boris Yeltsin, occupying the Russian Presidency, no strong leadership existed to contain the threat of rogue elements within the Russian military seizing control of nuclear arms and using it for their own ends.

As a conflict with separatist Chechens stoked nationalist fires in Russia, the threat seemed to continually grow until Vladimir Putin ascended to the Presidency.

Putin has critically undermined the fragile Russian democracy. But he brought stability and cohesion to the Russian military.

In the film, Lieutenant Commander Ron Hunter (Denzel Washington) is chosen by Captain Frank Ramsey (Gene Hackman) to be the executive officer of the USS Alabama, a nuclear submarine being deployed to act as a preemtive strike force in the event that a rogue Russian general attempts to launch nuclear weapons he has seized control of.

The secnario deteriorates while the Alabama is at sea, and they receive orders they would otherwise consider unthinkable: they are to launch their missiles to preemptively destroy missiles which reports have indicated are being fuelled for launch.

However, in the midst of an encounter with a Russian attack sub, an Emergency Action Message to the Alabama. They are left with a message fragment that could indicate an order to fire at different targets, or to abort launch.

Hunter insists that the Alabama must reestablish radio contact to confirm its orders. Ramsey is adamant that, in absence of new orders, the orders to launch stand.

Each man is weighing different sides of a nuclear holocaust. If Ramsey is right, Russian rebels are preparing to fire nuclear weapons at the United States, and must be stopped. If Hunter is right, the Alabama risks setting off a nuclear war that otherwise won't happen.

The chances of such a scenario playing out in Russia today are coparatively remote.

While increasing tension surrounding Iran's nuclear program have stoked fires of nuclear conflict, the more likely scenario is that Pakistani nuclear weapons fall into the hands of the increasingly-active Pakistani Taliban, or perhaps even by rogue elements of the Pakistani military itself.

In the Crimson Tide secnario, it's inferred that the rebel general is leaked nuclear launch codes from within the Kremlin itself.

In a Pakistani scenario, it's most likely that, if leaked to the Taliban, any codes necessary to launch nuclear weapons would be handed over directly by the ISI.

As the security climate in Pakistan continues to deteriorate, it's more and more likely that the Crimson Tide scenario will be played out in Pakistan rather than Iran or Russia.

While Iran's nuclear program very much does pose a theat to global peace, it's the weapons that Pakistan already possesses that may pose the greatest threat to global peace and security.

No one in their right mind likes it. But so long as any prospect, whatsoever, remains of Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of malevolent forces, the capacity to launch preemptive nuclear strikes will remain necessary.

Bravo, Canadian Arts Community

Way to justify all that public arts funding

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his attention to cut arts funding from Canada's budget during the 2008 election, his Conservative Party took what was actually a well-deserved dip in the polls.

Frequently a target of conservative thinkers, public arts funding provides a vital life line to cultural works that help develop and promote Canadian culture and identity.

But to say that governments of varying levels have a role in financially supporting arts isn't to say that arts and culture should be funded indiscriminately. The funding being indirectly extended to Homegrown, a terrorist-sympathizing play about Toronto 18 terrorist Shareef Abdelhaleem stands as a stark example of something that should not have been funded.

According to Catherine Frid, the producer of the play, Homegrown isn't actually a terrorist-sympathizing work.

“Homegrown does not promote, sanction or excuse terrorism," Frid insists. "It looks at one of the men convicted of terrorism and points out some of the many irregularities in the Canadian criminal justice system that led to his conviction"

"He wasn't planning to blow up Bay and Front Street with a truck bomb," Frid continues. "People don't know the whole story behind Shareef's conviction. I'm not speaking for all the Toronto 18, I'm just focusing on the one person I met and whose case I followed and I'm telling that story."

The problem for Frid is that her assessment doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

When Abdelhaleem was convicted, his defence counsel called no evidence regarding his guilt or innocence, and instead merely tried to argue that he was entrapped. in a subsequent ruling, it was ruled that Abdelhaleem was not entrapped.

The only means by which funding of a particular project can be justified is that it embodies Canadian culture, or promotes Canadian values.

All too often, "Canadian values" are passed off by the far left as a canard. In fact, there are very few values -- conservative or left-wing -- that could be definitively described as Canadian.

But there are some values that definitively are not, and sympathy for terrorism is one of those.

Even as the controversy builds surrounding this play, politicians are already beginning to demonstrate who gets it, and who just doesn't.

In the category of those who don't get it is Toronto City Councillor Adam Vaughn, who insists that government has no place deciding what art is or isn't exhibited.

Which isn't at all what this story is about. Very few people are suggesting that play such as the one Frid is producing shouldn't be exhibited publicly at all. (Some individuals are, and these notions actually are misguided.)

The issue is about what kinds of productions public funds should support.

Toronto City Councillor -- and member of the Toronto Arts Council -- Norm Kelly does get it.

"There is freedom of expression but there is nothing that says there should be freedom of investment," Kelly insists. "Art plays a number of roles in society... but [this play] would be going too far. If the court was correct in its assessment of their intent, I don't see much artistic merit in that portrayal."

Likewise -- as is so often the case -- the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Kevin Gaudet gets it as well.

“You want to put on a play? Fine. Hang up your shingle and ask people to pay for it," Gaudet said. "If it has to do with sympathetic portraits of terrorists who want to destroy my country, I won’t go."

A great many Canadians won't bother to go see such a play. A steep financial loss incurred by an empty theatre would serve as a stark lesson for individuals such as Frid about how far Canadians are prepared to sympathize with terrorists, home-grown or otherwise.

The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation opposes any and all funding of cultural festivals. In this, they are in error. But in opposing any form of public funding whatsoever for Homegrown, they are right on the money.

Homegrown should not receive a red cent of public funding in support of it. If Catherine Frid cannot provide or secure the money to produce it, it simply doesn't deserve to be made.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Blazing Cat Fur - "Your Taxes Really are 'Play Money'"

Alan Adamson - "Arts Subsidies"

The Wrong Idea

In a 60 second spot rejected by CBS, the Republican Trust attempts to make its case against Cordoba House, a 13-story Islamic centre that will also feature a mosque.

Arguments against Cordoba House insist that it will become a lightning rod for militant Islamists, will promote militant Islam, and that it will be a celebration of 9/11 -- a symbol of Islam's triumph.

This is precisely the argument presented in this ad.

The problem for the GOP Trust is that this argument relies on an overweening ignorance of the individuals behind Cordoba House, and the beliefs of the organization leading the project.

Even the evidence offered for the alleged radicalism of Cordoba Initiative -- such as its Shari'ah index project -- are not in reality what they are said to be. In fact, the Shari'ah law promoted by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf doesn't appear to be any Shari'ah law that would be recognized by those familiar with the extreme variant of it practiced in so many states today.

“What are the principles that make a state Islamic?" Rauf rhetorically asks. "We can say among them is justice, protection of religion and minorities and elimination of poverty, and so on.”

Protection of minorities isn't a concept one would associate with Shari'ah law-practising countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The opponents of Cordoba House are close to being right about one thing: the construction of the centre would represent a triumph for Islam: a triumph of moderate Islam over the evil and militant political ideology individuals like Osama Bin Laden have transformed it into.

Opposing Cordoba House doesn't aid the fight against this insidious political ideology -- it actually hampers it. By denying organizations such as the Cordoba Initiative public space, they deny them the opportunity to counter the vile message of militant Muslim demagogues who send their poorest and most disenfranchised to wage war for their benefit.

Opponents of Cordoba House may not appreciate the symbolic value of Muslims worshipping peacefully at the feet of the towers their hateful counterparts destroyed. But a great many moderate Muslims will.

To deny them that opportunity out of a xenophobic, intolerant and paranoid mania would be a historical tragedy with little comparison, and that is what would really embolden militant Islam.

On the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 bombings that tore through downtown London, there are few better days than today to realize that obscuring the difference between peaceful, moderate Islam and the aforementioned Islamist political ideology is unacceptably counter-productive.

It's the wrong idea, through and through.

Reflections on the Prelude To the Toronto Riots

On May 18, 2010, self-dexcribed anarchists firebombed a Royal Bank of Canada branch in downtown Toronto.

In a YouTube video taken of the attack, the perpetrators cited RBC's sponsorship of the 2010 Olympics, homelessness, and the bank's financing of oil sands developments in Fort MacMurray.

The group also promised to be present at the G8 and G20 summits.

In other words, their May 18 attack was actually a prelude of what this particular group was planning at the G8 and G20 summits.

Examining a number of different postings of that video, one thing quickly becomes an apparent: those who sympathize with anarchist terrorists are nearly as much a part of the problem as are the terrorists themselves.

These videos managed to draw a number of sympathizers to defend the actions of those who perpetrated the bombing. Some of them are more lucid than others.

They tend to base their support of this attack on an economic worldview that the far left seems to share with anarchists:

They tend to be particularly candid on how they see actions such as the May 18 attack, or the riots currently tearing through Toronto. It isn't a joke. These people are deadly serious:

They defend these kinds of actions based on necessity. Unable to voice their agenda in a manner that would win the support of logical, rational Canadians, violence is the last resort of these individuals. They actually lionize this kind of intellectual sloth:

Moreover, they attempt to excuse themselves by pointing out that "no one got hurt". (Yet are rather resentful of the detail that a bank firebombing in Greece killed three people, including a pregnant woman.)

Moreover, they attempt to justify their violence by pointing out the violence that police use against them -- omitting the detail that the violence is in response to the violence used by anarchists themselves.

Moreover, they forecast further violence:

However bad the violence in downtown Toronto has been today, the RBC firebombing reminds us that it could have been much worse, especially if police hadn't arrested the perpetrators of that bombing before the summit.

When police arrested the three known perpetrators of the May 18 bombing, they were found to be in possession of hundreds of 7.62 mm rounds, as well as incendiary materials and explosives.

Whatever RBC bomb perps Roger Clement, Matthew Morgan-Brown and Claude Handge had in store for the G8 and G20 summits, it becomes clear that the May 18 bombing may have paled in comparison.

Not all anarchists are terrorists by any means. But international summits have demonsrated that terrorists walk among anarchist circles. Well-meaning anarchists would do well to identify such individuals and expel them from their movement.

But one thing they cannot do is justify the violence. Terrorism is terrorism, and it should always be dealt with appropriately.

Let's Talk About the "Culture of Fear"

The far left simply doesn't get it -- they didn't get it before, and they won't get it now

Writing mere hours before the outbreak of violent protests in downtown Toronto surrounding the set-to-begin G20 summit, Rabble.ca's Darren Puscas published an article entitled "Harper's aggressive plants: Canada at the G8 and G20 Summits".

Among the plans Puscas treats as "aggressive" are the promotion of budgetary austerity amidst the European economy walking a tightrope between tenuous stability and total collapse, opposition to a global bank tax, opposition to Iran's nuclear program, climate realism, and the child & maternal health program.

And one other thing: Puscas insists that Stephen Harper is propagating a "culture of fear" around the G8 and G20 summits:

For the far-left, Puscas' article is a potent and somehow welcoming fantasy, built upon a heap of other ideological fictions.

Yet as Canadians confront the reality unfolding in downtown Toronto, Puscas will likely be disappointed to learn that his propaganda cannot obscure the truth: it isn't Stephen Harper that has propogated a culture of fear around these summits, it's the far left.

After all, it isn't Stephen Harper currently smashing windows and torching police cruisers in downtown Toronto. It's the extreme anarchist denizens of the black bloc -- not an organized group, per se, but rather a pseudo-spontaneous mass intended to provide cover by allowing violent, black-clad protesters to nearly vanish within it.

When one considers Puscas' denunciation of "the insider and outsider reality that marks the global economy", it becomes clear that the violent thugs at work today share Puscas' perspective on the matter.

The goal of the black bloc is to spread fear amongst leaders and their supporters, so as to breed acquiesence to their agenda.

In other words, it's the black bloc, sharing Puscas' agenda, that are seeking to create a culture of fear.

In fact, it quickly becomes apparent that the security perimeter built around around the summit site is entirely justified in order to contain and control these violent outbursts -- Puscas' description of it clearly is not.

Not that one should expect Darren Puscas to understand this. He clearly didn't understand it when he wrote his Rabble article, and he almost certainly doesn't understand it now.

Segal Out of Place as Head of Anti-Terror Committee

Hugh Segal elected to chair Senate committee on anti-terror laws

Conservative Senator Hugh Segal has been elected to chair a special Senate committee on anti-terror laws. The committee will examine two anti-terror bills, including Bill C-17, which will restore anti-terror laws that sunsetted in 2007.

"It was an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to investigative hearings," Segal explained. "Whether somebody could be held because there was a suspicion that they had either been involved in a terrorist act, or had information about a coming terrorist act, and what were their rights in that process, and what were the rights of the Crown."

In order to make decisions regarding the legislation, the committee will investigate the overall terrorism situation in Canada.

"We're going to be working on an update of what is the state of the terrorist threat in Canada (and) how has that threat changed in the last five years," Segal explained.

Segal has proven to be an adept thinker on numerous policy issues. But terrorism-related issues isn't one of his strengths.

Pierre Trudeau's decision to invoke the War Measures Act during the October Crisis of 1970 has been a controversial one in Canadian history. Segal, who was a student at the University of Ottawa at the time, has been an outspoken critic of that decision.

The limitation of civil rights is not a matter to be taken lightly at any time. But the kidnapping of British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Pierre Laporte, a Quebec cabinet Minister, limited Trudeau's options in responding to the crisis.

Invoking the War Measures Act was a necessary part of the response to the threat posed by the FLQ. It introduced a crucial element of control into the situation, allowing the government to account for the activities of FLQ sympathizers who may have aided the terrorists.

The crus of the matter was, of course, that the Trudeau government had, through its own negligence, allowed the situation to grow out of control.

Unless Segal's views on the October Crisis have changed drastically in short order, it may not be unreasonable to suggest that Segal isn't up to the task of making decisions in regards to terrorism -- particularly when Segal himself seems to understand that the nature of current terrorist threats represents a more fractious, less centralized structure.

"We now face a threat that is more diffuse, in other words it's not somebody in a cave sending instructions to cells around the world," Segal said. "But rather self-identifying cells of individuals deciding they are frustrated with this, that or other, and they want to use terrorism as a means of making their point."

In his favaour, Segal seems to understand that the government cannot afford to repeat the preemptive failures of the Trudeau government.

"When you have individuals who [are] more than prepared to die, then that of course provides a preventative challenge," Segal declared. "So it changes the dynamic of the challenge and makes it more complex, all the more reason to make sure we're doing it in the best possible way."

But while Hugh Segal may be more than willing to do what is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, he needs to show concerned parties that he's willing to do what is necessary if those preventative measures fail.

Otherwise, his chairing the Senate committee on anti-terrorism is a mistake.

It Must Be Great to Be Able to Have Everything Both Ways

Effort to use Times Square bomb plot to demonize Tea Party movement doesn't end with non-tea partier suspect

In the immediate aftermath of the foiled Times Square bomb plot, the minds of many people around the world turned to the question of who may have been behind it.

Many presumed that the perpetrator must have been an Islamic terrorist. Based on the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American, one would expect that these people have the right to feel vindicated.

Not so, according to Salon.com's Alex Parent, who is holding a grudge at the relief expressed by Jonah Goldberg that the perpetrator of the act "wasn't white":

"The bloggers at National Review's The Corner can barely conceal their glee that the man arrested this morning for attempted terror is a proper foreign-born Muslim dude, and not a God-fearing white Christian. Jonah Goldberg admits as much:

When the Times Square story first broke there was a part of me that said, 'Man, I hope it's not some white militia nutjob.' When I saw the news this morning that it was a Pakistani, the same small part of me was relieved.

A normal human might be relieved that the person responsible for the attempted bombing is in custody. Jonah is just relieved that his prejudices against Muslims were reinforced."

That could have been the case -- maybe. Or maybe it's more likely that Goldberg was worried about efforts by left-wingers to accuse the Tea Party movement of being responsible for the plot:

That was a cached page from Yahoo! answers. The following is a comment plucked off of TPM Muckraker (do they ever):

So this is the rhetorical world that Alex Parent inhabits: if early reports indicate that the suspect is middle-aged and white, it's entirely fair to surmise that the perpetrator might be a Tea Partier (or Tea Bagger, in the juvenile parlance of the left).

If the perpetrator turns out to be a Pakistani allgedly attempting to avenge the deat of a Taliban leader, it's unfair for the Tea Party movement and its supporters to feel vindicated.

It's a similar rhetorical trick as the demagogue who accuses an individual of being racist if they don't believe that racial epithets have been spat at an African American legislator.

It must be nice to be entitled to have everything both ways -- particularly when it's yourself who's decided that you're entitled to have it so.

The Government Took 102 Minutes to Do What I Could Do in 12

Terrorist-funding George Galloway inadmissable to Canada

A recent report by the Globe and Mail maintains that Citizenship and Immigration Canada took less than two hours to rule that British MP George Galloway was inadmissable to enter Canada to give a series of speeches.

Many Canadians, knowing the facts of the case, would have taken less than two hours to make such a decision.

The story alleges that Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was involved in the decision, via an email sent by his communications director to bureaucrats at the ministry.

The report will almost certainly help those predisposed to argue that Galloway was ruled inadmissable due to political reasons snowball this story into a freedom of speech outrage.

And the truth be told, they may be right about whether or not politics played a role in his inadmissability. Sorta.

As Terry Glavin points out, Galloway has been far less than truthful about his decision to donate 25,000 pounds sterling to Hamas.

More recently, Galloway has claimed the money was given to the Gazan ministry of health. It seems that doctors salaries had been going unpaid until Galloway's intervention.

"I didn’t give any money to Hamas, I gave it to the ministry of health in Gaza to pay for the salaries of the doctors and nurses who hadn’t been paid," Galloway insisted. "By the way, we’re talking about 20 odd thousand pounds, not millions. It’s a symbolic donation. I gave it to the ministry of health in Gaza and I’m proud to have done so."

The problem is that Galloway was lying.

When Galloway actually made the donation, he portrayed it rather differently.

I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley, and the two Respect councillors – Muhammad Ishtiaq and Naim Khan – are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh," Galloway announced in a televised address. "Here is the money. This is not charity. This is politics."

Considering that Hamas is a banned terrorist organization in Canada, providing them with 25,000 pounds violates both the letter and spirit of the law.

Moreover, Haniyeh was not the Prime Minister at the time when he accepted that money from Galloway. He had been fired as PM by Gaza President Mahmoud Abbas, and has been unlawfully occupying that office ever since.

At the time of Haniyeh's dismissal, Hamas was known to be torturing and murdering Fatah members that had been scapegoated for the 2007 setback experienced by Palestinian militants when Israel responded to a number of rocket attacks with military incursions into the Gaza strip.

(For their own part, Fatah wasn't any better during the conflict.)

But as it stands, it turns out that it very much was politics that influenced the decision to rule George Galloway inadmissable to Canada. Trick is that it was Gallowya's own politics, as he himself defined them, not Jason Kenney's.

It shouldn't have taken nearly 102 minutes for Citizenship and Immigration Canada to rule George Galloway inadmissable. It should have taken approximately 12 minutes -- maybe even less.

Ward Churchill and the Making of a Martyr

In 2001, University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill sparked a firestorm of controversy when he wrote and published an essay in which he described the victims as "Little Eichmanns".

In the essay, he wrote:

"As for those in the World Trade Center … Well, really, let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire — the ‘mighty engine of profit’ to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved — and they did so both willingly and knowingly… If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

Naturally, in the wake of an international outrage -- at least in the eyes of those not blinded by ideological fervour -- these comments were bound to provoke a great deal of animosity.

When They Came For Ward Churchill is a carefully-planned film, in which Churchill and the film's producers attempt to lionize him and transform him into a martyr at the same time. For those satisifed by the film's treatment of the affair, it may seem as if they succeeded. For those willing to weigh the film against a broader sample of reality, the film's failure is nothing short of dismal.

Throughout the film, clips of a speech given to a sympathetic audience in which Churchill spoke with his voice dripping with outrage.

Irritatingly, the film tacitly avoids speaking to anyone critical of Churchill, his comments, or his work. So on this note Churchill's history of plagiarism and fabrication within his own academic works goes entirely unaddressed.

But there's other value in When They Came After Ward Churchill: as an exploration of the attempts of Churchill -- and many individuals like him -- to make himself into a martyr.

In the film, Churchill appears before a sympathetic audience, backed by a party from a nearby First Nations tribe, replete with drums. Their dress and demanour suspiciously resembles that of "war party" styled militant protesters.

Churchill -- widely known as a self-styled blowhard -- seems to be striving to create the impression of himself as an otherwise-helpless target of reactionary forces.



Churchill reiterates a litany of Chomsky-esque historical grievances against the United States -- many of which, in many ways, are entirely legitimate, even if in some cases stripped of their historical context (the nature of the warfare used against Imperial Japan during the Second World War is an atrocity by today's terms, but Churchill is reflecting on an entirely different era of total warfare).

But to use those acts as justification for the 9/11 attacks would be to artificially transplant many of those grievances into the motivations of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As will shortly be elaborated on shortly, this is a grave conceptual and analytical error.



Russel Means, a lawyer appearing alongside Churchill in interviews, insists that the backlash against Churchill was simply racism. He chooses to overlook the fact that many other academics and commentators have provoked similar outrage, without the benefit of having the race card to play.

(Canada's own Kevin Potvin comes to mind.)

This kind of disengenuous allusions to race and racism are a convenient refuge for the demagogue desperate to artificially establish themselves as a martyr.

Furthermore, in order to classify the response to Churchill's essay as "anti-intellectual" is to overlook the dubiousness of the academic, analytical, and conceptual value of his essay.



Most intriguing about the film is Churchill's own -- again, unchallenged -- attempt to spin the academic review of his work into a crusade against him.

Churchill would later admit that the plagiarism did, in fact, take place, and admitted that he was directly involved in it through his role as an editor.

Interestingly enough, the allegations of plagiarism pre-dated Churchill's "Little Eichmann" comments. In 1997, Fay Cohen, a professor at Dalhousie University, complained that Churchill had plagiarized her.

Cohen would also report that Churchill placed a threatening late-night phone call to her.



Churchill also takes time to complain about the state of aboriginal policy in the United States. His complaints are every bit as valid in the United States as they would be in Canada.

But, again, the last thing on Osama Bin Laden's mind was the state of American aboriginals. It can't be used to justify 9/11, or Churchill's comments about 9/11.



It's remarkable how willing Churchill is to contradict his own argument. While Churchill insists that he didn't mean to declare that the children, police officers, firemen, and other "support workers" were legitimate targets, he also argues that in order to be considered "innocent" one also has to oppose what he describes as the oppressive system of global capitalism.

Thus unless each and every one of those individuals were opponents of the social order Churchill so despises, they would still be considered legitimate targets according to his own argument.



But at the end of the day, the most pertinent point is this: Ward Churchill's comments weren't merely inflammatory, but they were also academically bankrupt.

Churchill's suggestions that the sins of global capitalism -- real, imagined, and invented -- justified 9/11 and rendered the victims of 9/11 legitimate simply doesn't hold water when one considers that Osama Bin Laden, and those who carried out the attack, wouldn't agree with Churchill's analysis of the attack.

Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed didn't plan and execute the 9/11 attacks as a retaliation against global capitalism. They didn't even plan and execute the attack as a retaliation against American foreign policy.

Al Qaeda planned and executed 9/11 as an act intending to intimidate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia into giving into their demands, and helping to reestablish the Caliphate.

Not only does Ward Churchill's feigned outrage distract from the general weakness of his thesis, but the public outrage at them served as a distraction as well. In this particular sense, the controversy -- though well-provoked by Churchill -- was actually a grave disservice to the discourse on the matter, both public and academic.

You Reap What You Sow

The Koran and the Kalashnikov chronicles the history of American involvement in the Indo-Pakistani region, particularly in Afghanistan, from the American involvement in the Soviet-Afghanistan war and onward.

Dr Charles Cogan described the policy of supporting the mujahideen in Afghanistan as "pay back" for the Russians, who had supported the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam war -- effectively as revenge for the deaths of American servicemen during that conflict.

If revenge was truly the aim of American policy, it worked spectacularly. The Soviet Union reported that 15,000 of its troops were killed and 37,000 wounded. It remains far short of the more than 58,000 American servicemen killed and 303,000 wounded in Vietnam, but the defeat was every bit as humiliating for the Soviet Union as the American defeat in Vietnam had been.

Yet if the Soviet Union had reaped in Afghanistan what they had sowed in Vietnam, the United States would yet reap on its own soil what it had sowed in Afghanistan.

Just as Soviet intervention in Vietnam would give rise to a state with an atrocious human rights record and thus prove to be rather irresponsible, American involvement in the Soviet-Afghanistan war proved to be irresponsible in that it lent material support to individuals such as Osama Bin Laden, an individual so committed to a warped concept of Islamic jihad that he would eventually turn on his own suppliers after being rebuffed in his native Saudi Arabia.

But what the United States reaped it didn't reap alone. Osama Bin Laden parlayed the reputation he had earned as a leader into tremendous influence among fundamentalist Islamic circles, and used the presence of foreign troops on Muslim holy lands to ratchet up ideological support for his terrorist tactics, and draw more disenfranchised Muslims to act in favour of his cause.

The Taliban regime in Afghanistan provided Bin Laden with safe haven to plan his activities and to establish training camps for Muslim terrorists.

As The Koran and the Kalashnikov reminds us, much of this could have been headed off if re-building efforts had been continued in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, as opposed to simply abandoning the country to material poverty and civil war.

How many so-called "peace" activists imagine a similar situation can be avoided by withdrawing from Afghanistan and leaving it to the devices of extremist political organizations such as the Taliban and Hisb-i-Islami remains uncertain.

Remember the Victims as People, Not as Victims

Eight years ago today, Al Qaida terrorists hijacked four airliners.

As the world will remember today, two of those planes were crashed into the World Trade Centre. One of them was crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth never made it to its target.

When one watches United 93, one may expect a story of heroism. That is, after all, what the film was marketed as.

But watching the film can be rather frustrating if one considers the ease with which the film at least makes it look like the passengers could have overcome the hijackers.

What instead emerges is the simple story of real people caught in a situation not of their choosing, and how they react to it.

To suggest that by watching United 93 a viewer can get to know the passengers killed on that plane would be an extreme exaggeration. But a viewer does walk away from the film with a much more real sense that these were real people -- they had real lives, real families, and made a very real sacrifice.

As the world looks back on 9/11 today, it will remember those killed in the attacks as victims. And indeed they were.

But it may be even more important to remember them not as an abstraction -- and the ideal of victimization is certainly an abstraction -- but rather as real people.

It's a simple idea, but one that is all the more important today.

Planting the Seeds of Your Own Destruction

A&E's Biography: "The Saudi Royal Family" presents an often overlooked (at least by those who don't know enough to look) ideological linkage between the Saudi Royal Family and Islamic terrorism.

The episode presents the story of Ibn Saud, the founder of the Saudi Arabian state, and the man credited by some as the ultimate founder of Wahhabi Islam, the denomination of Islam that Muslim militants most often subscribe to.

If one accepts this to be true -- the matter is not nearly so simple in reality, but if one does -- then it stands to reason that Ibn Saud may have planted the seeds of his dynasty's own destruction.

Social theorizing on terrorism generally shares the conclusion that terrorism is rarely meant on its direct victims.

According to the crimonological perspective on terrorism, terrorism is a form of coercive social control, wherein those with little social, economic or social influence seek to enforce their values on their society.

In the case of Muslim terrorism, and particularly Osama bin Laden, many speculate that the true target of that terrorism is not actually the western world, but rather the Saudi Royal Family. The idea, clearly, is that if muslim terrorists can inflict great harm on the Royal Family's most powerful allies -- as they did on 9/11, that the House of Saud would fear what terrorists could do to them.

The years of opulant and leisurely lifestyle led by the House of Saud and their political alliances with western countries -- as well as the presence of foreign troops on Saudi soil, particularly too close to holy sites -- has led Wahhabi Muslims to see the House of Saud, from which their religious ideology is believed by some to have originated, as an enemy of their religion.

One can only wonder if, had he known what the future would hold, Ibn Saud would have done anything differently.

The Burning Stupid of Canada's Extreme Left

From the same people who brought you the insidious Ollie North/Taliban conspiracy theory comes this recent gem in which John Baglow, aka "Dr Dawg", takes issue with a less recent National Post Full Comment blogpost by Raphael Alexander.

In the post, Raphael renews the call for the trial of Omar Khadr to begin:

"Seven years in prison without trial is certainly a lengthy incarceration without due process, and I am concerned that we may never get to see Omar Khadr’s day in court."

What emerges as so distasteful however, is the notion that Alexander would think that Khadr is likely guilty:"

...This is still a man 22 years of age who, if released in the next few years, would still have his entire life to make amends with his fellow Canadian citizens, to whom he has brought shame and embarrassment"

"Seven years without trial -- and still guilty," Baglow complains.

Which leads one to ask themselves this question:

What, precisely, do John Baglow and company think Omar Khadr was doing in Afghanistan in the first place? Enjoying tea and crumpets?

One really does wonder. Because, as Mike from (Ir)Rational Reasons seems to indicate, they really may have no clue whatsoever:

"Raph does not even entertain the possibility that Omar is not guilty of the crime his is accused of and is the victim of his circumstances - brought to Afghanistan by his father at a young age and brought up in that environment.

Its simple: if he is guilty of an actual crime, produce the evidence and convict him. Now. Otherwise, bring him home and let him go. Now."

Apparently, in the mind of Mike -- and one wonders how many share his particularly fevered and hazardous way of thinking -- a "not guilty" verdict in a trial means that Omar Khadr walks free immediately.

And if a judge were particularly reckless with Canadian national security, that very well may be the case.

After all, Canadians know full well what Omar Khadr was doing in Afghanistan -- or, rather, what Ahmed Said Khadr was doing on the many occasions when he had his family overseas. In 2003, Ahmed, a known Al Qaida financier, was killed in a firefight in Pakistan.

He was continuing to indoctrinate his children in his militant Islamic religious beliefs, and involving them in militant Islamic groups. In 2002, Ahmed Khadr sent Omar with a band of Arab Muslims who associated Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior Al Qaida leader.

Ahmed Khadr had a habit of putting his sons into warzones that should disquiet even the most unscrupulous "peace" activist -- the kind of "peace" activist that have often been willing to participate in rallies with the Khadrs. Not only did Ahmed Khadr expose Omar to the rigours of warfare, but his son Abdul Karim Khadr was paralyzed during the same firefight in which Ahmed himself was killed.

Omar Khadr is a child soldier -- not simply a child soldier, but a child terrorist soldier. And that makes his prospect of immediate release far cloudier than Mike is giving it credit for.

Demobilizing child soldiers is a long and arduous process. Child soldiers need to be provided with education and psychiatric care. The rehabilitation of Omar Khadr would only be further complicated by the fact that his enlistment as a child soldier was also a gross act of child abuse -- even though he and his family may not recognize it.

To turn Khadr loose into the public would be allowing a ticking time bomb to go free. While Mike is close to spot-on when he notes the resentment that comes with seven years of imprisonment without trial -- only another reason why said detention is a miscarriage of justice -- but to credit that with any militancy is to ignore his family history, and ignore what his father indoctrinated him in, and subjected him to.

Considering Mike's long and far-from-rational history of lunacy, one should be far from surprised to find that he has so little grasp of these concepts.

That he can't conceive of the very real possibility -- even likelihood -- that a child soldier indoctrinated in Islamic militancy could be dangerous is just another example of the burning stupidity of Canada's far left.