A far, far away men­ace close to us

Stanstead Journal - - FORUM -

A cou­ple of months, if not weeks ago, ISIS as it was then called, was noth­ing more than a bunch of rag­tag hooli­gans un­able to muster any support out­side of a cou­ple of thou­sands of mil­i­tants.

Well, its name was not ISIS, as in Iraq and Syria, but ISIL, as in Iraq and the Le­vant. Look it up and bring Lawrence of Ara­bia in full re­galia in ma­jes­tic Panav­i­sion and Tech­ni­color to save us once again.

It’s a bad movie and we’ve al­ready paid the price of ad­mis­sion too many times. No amount of spe­cial ef­fects, not even in 4D if it ex­ists some­where, will bring a bad sce­nario to life. The United States, un­able to play the Sor­cerer’s Ap­pren­tice one more time, has cre­ated monsters that ole’ Doc’ Franken­stein would be proud off. Ex­cept that they are more Hy­drae than Shel­ley’s mon­ster, with more heads cap­tured, re­plac­ing the de­cap­i­tated ones daily.

That the United States blames the bar­bar­ians, they are almost putting Pol Pot to shame, re­fus­ing to ad­mit that prop­ping up the Malaki regime for years is re­spon­si­ble for to­day’s sit­u­a­tion, doesn’t make the Repub­lic to the South proud. That Canada is get­ting on board that mad­ness is even cra­zier.

The Harper gov­ern­ment has thrown over­board the only le­git­i­macy that we had in the Mid­dle-East, that of an hon­est bro­ker, a legacy of our only Nobel Peace Prize win­ner, Lester B. Pear­son. The legacy of hav­ing in­vented the Blue Beret, of al­ways act­ing as go-be­tween. Telling our en­e­mies that we would be fair, our al­lies that we would be just. And all of that dates from the big frac­ture in Mid­dle East­ern pol­icy: The Suez Canal con­flict.

None of that would have any bear­ing with our daily life if not for the lit­tle prob­lem of our ge­o­graph­i­cal lo­ca­tion. Smack on the bor­der.

And you can be sure that if ONE as in only ONE of those cra­zies crosses over the bor­der from Canada, that the Septem­ber 11th af­ter­math will look like a piece of cake.

First things first. By giv­ing the wrong mes­sage, namely that Is­lamist rad­i­cal­ism is an ac­cepted form of so­cial be­hav­iour, all in the name of mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism gone awry. This brings back the Que­bec de­bate on the is­sue to the fore­front. We will re­peat our po­si­tion: Right Idea, Very Bad im­ple­men­ta­tion.

When a so­ci­ety says that it is okay to wear signs as­so­ci­ated mainly with an ide­ol­ogy, it tells those who are most vul­ner­a­ble to lis­ten to the dem­a­gogues. We would never al­low some­one to pa­rade in a Nazi uni­form on the street. Would we?

In Eng­land, the prob­lem is so se­vere that whole neigh­bour­hoods are in fact Lit­tle Ara­bias, where Is­lamist fun­da­men­tal­ism rules and English law is an af­ter­thought for most. Women, not even sec­ond class cit­i­zens, are clad from head to toe, in­vis­i­ble to any­one. This has helped Great-Bri­tain’s econ­omy a lot; as long as they are in Bri­tain, they don’t com­plain much. Then they get rad­i­cal­ized and behead a cou­ple of in­fi­dels.

Let’s hope that none, from Canada, cross into the USA. Es­pe­cially around here.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.