Kick radicals out

If people wish to fight and die for ISIS, the caliphate, and Islamic extremism

then kick them out of the country. Simply put, they are going to cause problems with terror strikes, causing massive fear, police safety situations, and the loss of life and property of hapless innocent victims.  The cost to society is greater if they stay.

Kick them out to the caliphate. They don't kill our people and we can deal with them by cluster bomb later.

The Caliphate wants to take your life from you

People think that ISIS is far away, that we can ignore the risk.  ISIS doesn't think that way, they think all you have is there's and it's a matter of time before you are part of their caliphate. They are threatening you in advance, that should be all the justification we need to eliminate them all. 

ISIS represents anti-society. It does not want this century. It wants the 9th century again. 

Frankly, I'd rather all Canadians that feel like joining ISIS should be allowed to leave and join them.  That saves on bombs.

Russell Brand is approaching Demagogue Status

▶ Ottawa Killings: Who Wins? Russell Brand The Trews (E174) - YouTube

I admire a lot of what Russell Brand stands for, his compassion for all people, the willingness to hear people of counterviews, and his wide lexicon.

Unfortunately, there is evidence of his conversion from a concerned thoughtful citizen into a demagogue.  His personality and need for attention are starting to get the better of him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from French "demagogue", derived in turn from the Greek "demos" = people/folk and the verb "ago" = carry/manipulate thus "people's manipulator") or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives.

In the video above  he takes a template assumption - that the Canadian Conservative government is trying to steal liberties using the shootings / car assaults as the excuse.  He points out there is no proof that the crimes were radicalization-related.  He makes the comparison to other incidents that were used to justify the government-industry "hegemony" encroaching your civil liberties.

Except it's not what he thinks.  And he provides no proof to back up his claims.

 There is no rapid escalation in surveillance, sure they are rushing changes to make this particular case less likely.  But there are two opposition parties that are not going to rubber stamp an extreme legislation.  And what Russell gets wrong ("Canadians hate Stephen Harper") is that there is an election next year and Harper wants to get elected.  He knows any controversial laws will make his reelection less likely.  So there is no evidence he will risk his career on more controversy.  As Russell says, lots of Canadians hate Harper.  So why would he take the risk? On the other hand, an armed intruder got into Parliament.  Shouldn't the government do its job and review its security plan and crack down?

What Russell missed in his rush to judgment was this person was trying to get a passport and leave for Libya which is a Muslim battleground as much as Syria.  He made statements hating Canadian soldiers for war crimes overseas. And he was kicked out of a mosque for bad behaviour.  Even Muslims didn't want this guy around. Why does Russell Brand think we are claiming Zehaf-Bibeau is just another Muslim?

Russell didn't check his facts.  Muslims are forbidden from drugs use.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ethics   Zehaf-Bibeau used $160 per day heroin and crack cocaine.  So he wasn't really a Muslim was he, Russell?  Did you check that before you concluded what happened?

Gunman prepared video prior to Ottawa attack.  In fact, police have found a video. From that report:

In a statement released Sunday evening, RCMP said they have identified “persuasive evidence” that show Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack was “driven by ideological and political motives.”

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/gunman-prepared-video-prior-to-ottawa-attack-1.2071640#ixzz3HMMV62Ue

So wrong again Russell, you didn't know what you were talking about.

While Zehaf-Bibeau was mentally ill, he was a pawn of the caliphate. He thought he could make an impression wasting his life based on a call to kill infidels from caliphate (http://philosophical-ranting.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-true-nature-of-war-in-age-of-jihad.html).

No this wasn't a Muslim attack, this was a mentally-ill jihadi encouraged by the people that are in fact raping and killing, beheading infidels, exterminating religious minorities inside the Islamic State.  Does Russell Brand want to side with the caliphate?

Russell Brand, slow down the popularity train to make sure you know what you are talking about.  You are starting to sound like the anti-Fox News.  That doesn't sound very Trew-sy.

The true nature of war in the age of jihad.

Response to :
War, Sacrifice, and the Media


I was reading this Philosophy blog from the Stanford University and it struck me that neither of these philosophers - being in California - had been in New York or Washington on September 11, 2001.


Well as a foreign visitor, attending a course at Johns Hopkins University, I was there on that fateful day. I have a picture of the Pentagon one day earlier.  I watched the news, saw the attacks, and marvelled with our professors at the ultimate depravity of that fateful turning point.  Lawrence Klein had flown in to teach us and he was the most upset of all. It was a horrible day filled with doubt, fear, panic, and confusion.

It is nice to sit back in comfort and consider the deeper meanings of things from a tempered viewpoint.  But on that day in September it was no laughing matter and still isn't to be taken lightly.

People may look back and accuse George Bush of all sorts of buffonery. He deserves his share to be sure. And we can argue in circles about the reasons over Iraq but that attack on Afghanistan was in my view light compensation.  Frankly, I think most of the world would have understood had the Pentagon nuked Kandhahar. It would have been a heinous act but no less fitting the depravity that started it.

What people who have not been in the military do not grasp, and perhaps now that Islamic State has begun the Caliphate they can see, is that the people we are fighting do not see this as a fair contest between two nations locked in a struggle.  They see us as vermin for not heeding the will of Allah.  We are nothing more than condemned men awaiting final judgment. Ignore all the failings and misdeeds. There is a reason that the struggle is better over there than over here.

We are locked in a mortal struggle that will continue until one side is victorious.

On this level, there is no moral high ground,  there is no greater good, and the human rights of those savages that reject society should not be a consideration.  There will be no quarter for you or your family if these psychopathic mindless religious zombies win.  

Why do you think there was no surrender by the Taliban? Because they only need to bide their time and we leave.  They are not stopping to reevaluate they are stopping to reload and make ready!

In this context, there is a reason why you are in fact in more danger than in 1911.

Example,  in 1911 no Prussian farmer was inclined to board a cruiseliner, sail to New York, find his contacts, strap on a crude suicide belt, and walk into Grand Central Station and detonate himself crying, "God is great!".  There was no collateral threat from splinter groups or insurgent cells.  A Prussian farmer had no Youtube to learn how to attack mass gatherings.  Or blow up tanks.

In this day and age it would be a local kid that falls for the nonsense that is jihad, goes to Syria and learns all he needs and then returns to carry out a lone wolf attack.  Killing 500 people would not be unreasonable.

We must not allow ourselves to "humanize" an enemy that is essentially running on autopilot and is not moral. Rules of society should not hold against anti-society sociopaths.

The Caliphate must be eradicated

Who amongst you wants to go back to medieval laws and customs?

Christopher Hitchens reminds us not to turn our back on Jihad

Who blows up a perfectly good building that even poor people could use for a house just to make a point? A completely irrational and anarchistic person. In his speech, he claims that his fellow fighters are not concerned with boundaries on the map, but clearly by pointing out Sykes-Piccot he knows the symbol of a guard post on a line.  He's lying the whole time.  He does want to control the whole world.  He does want you to follow his beliefs. There is no middle ground here. There is no negotiation. Even if he negotiates its from a position of waiting to leverage the situation and not a concession.

These people are the product of lies, hatred, and war. They have no pity nor even human decency left. They are programmed robots at this point. You would get a better conversation from Sarah Palin.

If you have no idea what the punishment looks like in "modern" Islam looks like just listen to this lady:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwtYe0xxC28

Since there is no negotiation and no future in letting them have a territory then we, society, must do everything to eradicate them. They are biding their time before they attack the next country; until they have converted and programmed another generation of robot fighters.