For those who defend this? Then EFF them!
Right Truth: Three year old Afghan bride, beaten and tortured: "Three year old Afghan bride, beaten and tortured
Gulsoma's father died when she was three years old. Her mother and new step-father didn't want her, so she was given to a 30 year old neighbor as his bride. From the beginning of this 'marriage', Gulsoma was beaten, starved, burned, caged, and used as a slave to the 'husband', father-in-law and twelve other family children.
'My father-in-law asked me to do everything — laundry, the household chores — and the only time I was able to sleep in the house was when they had guests over,' she says. 'Other than that I would have to sleep outside on a piece of carpet without even any blankets. In the summer it was okay. But in the winter a neighbor would come over and give me a blanket, and sometimes some food.'..."
But wait, the Religion of Peace, this must be an aborration. A totally isolated incident.
"When she couldn't keep up with the workload, Gulsoma says, she was beaten constantly.
"They beat me with electric wires," she says, "mostly on the legs. My father-in-law told his other children to do it that way so the injuries would be hidden. He said to them, 'break her bones, but don't hit her on the face.'" they used her as a human tabletop, forcing her to lie on her stomach then cutting their food on her bare back.
Then, she says, he locked her in a shed for two months. ..."
Yeah, but she must have deserved this right? I mean they're Muslims, their religion couldn't condone this, could it?
No, it must not, otherwise Islam would NOT be a Religion of Peace and Forgiveness. Right?
If this poor girl's 'family' actually believed their treatment of this girl was justified and right, the father wouldn't say 'break her bones, but don't hit her on the face.'.
He obviously knows that it is wrong, or at least that some other people in the community would definitely not approve.
People who do shit like this are total garbage. Human scum, and hating them is healthy and just.
They are amoung the worst savage killer monkeys on the planet.
It's total bullsheet to say 'Well, it's just their culture.' Like raping, torturing and beating little girls could be a legitimate part of any legitimate culture. To those who say this, I say 'EFF YOU! you sick fuck!'
If it is part of any culture, then it follows that that culture is a crap culture, a savage, primitive and evil culture.
That culture most certainly does not practice any 'Religion of Peace'.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Islam, Religion of Peace & Forgiveness? A Non-Example...
The Legacy of Jihad - Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims [Andrew G. Bostom] - Note on Cover: "A consensus Muslim account of the massacre of the Qurayzah has emerged as conveyed by classical Muslim scholars of hadith (putative utterances and acts of Muhammad, recorded by pious Muslim transmitters), biographer's of Muhammad's life (especially Ibn Ishaq), jurists, and historians 2. This narrative is summarized as follows: Alleged to have aided the forces of Muhammad's enemies in violation of a prior pact, the Qurayzah were subsequently isolated and besieged. Twice the Qurayzah made offers to surrender, and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they requested to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayzah asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayzah surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayzah were lead to Medina. The men with their hands pinioned behind their backs, were put in a court, while the women and children were said to have been put into a separate court. A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayzah was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aus. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’adh from the Aus, who soon rendered his concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. ..."
Should we imagine this was the only time Muhammad behaved this way?
Spread the word people!
:)
Should we imagine this was the only time Muhammad behaved this way?
Spread the word people!
:)
Blog Good News Blog! Spread Good News!
With all the talk about the MSM just spinning the 'Bad' News of Iraq, and ignoring the good, and the eternal 'If it bleeds it leads.'media mantra; I wondered if there was a Good News Blog. Apparently there is. At first glance it looks pretty cool, all sorts of 'Good News' in all sorts of categories from all around the world.
Our little blue planet needs more good news blogs.
Please spread the word!
:)
Our little blue planet needs more good news blogs.
Please spread the word!
:)
Mike Whitney's 'Death Squad Democracy' Implies U.S. Trained Assassins Killing Americans!
The impression I get from Mike Whitney'sDeath Squad Democracy over at Dissident Voice is that he is implying that the Iraqi insurgency isn't killing other Iraqis, but that they are being killed by Iraqi black-ops killers trained by U.S. Military secret assassination trainers. I think he seems to imply that these Iraqi Government Assassins are also launching offensives and bombings which end up killing American soldiers as well.
Here he goes:
"The notion that Iraq is now consumed by civil war depends on a number of assumptions that are inherently false. First of all, it assumes that the Pentagon is ignoring the fundamental principle that underscores all wars: “Know your enemy.” In this case, there’s no doubt about who the enemy is: it is the 87% of the Iraqi people who want to see an immediate end to the American occupation. Therefore, the greatest threat to American objectives of permanent bases and occupation is the camaraderie that manifests itself in the form of Arab solidarity or Iraqi nationalism.
To this end, the Pentagon, through its surrogates in the media, has created a “self-fulfilling” narrative that civil war is already under way. Most of the war coverage now makes it appear as though the violence is generated from ethnic tensions and sectarian hatred. But is it? Some of the more astute observers have noticed that other parts of the propaganda war, (like references to the “imaginary” al-Zarqawi) have completely vanished from the newspapers, as government spin-doctors are now devoting 100% of their time to promoting their latest product line: civil war. ..."
Read the rest of this Al-Jazeera contributor's rant here.
This Moonbat doesn't believe that the insurgent terrorists have been killing innocent Iraqi citizens.
He thinks the White House and the American Military want a civil war in Iraq.
He thinks that the new Iraqi Government wants a civil war in Iraq.
He therefore must believe that if the U.S. Military were to leave Iraq immediately there would be no ore fighting and just peace and love everywhere.
This boy is out there.
:(
Here he goes:
"The notion that Iraq is now consumed by civil war depends on a number of assumptions that are inherently false. First of all, it assumes that the Pentagon is ignoring the fundamental principle that underscores all wars: “Know your enemy.” In this case, there’s no doubt about who the enemy is: it is the 87% of the Iraqi people who want to see an immediate end to the American occupation. Therefore, the greatest threat to American objectives of permanent bases and occupation is the camaraderie that manifests itself in the form of Arab solidarity or Iraqi nationalism.
To this end, the Pentagon, through its surrogates in the media, has created a “self-fulfilling” narrative that civil war is already under way. Most of the war coverage now makes it appear as though the violence is generated from ethnic tensions and sectarian hatred. But is it? Some of the more astute observers have noticed that other parts of the propaganda war, (like references to the “imaginary” al-Zarqawi) have completely vanished from the newspapers, as government spin-doctors are now devoting 100% of their time to promoting their latest product line: civil war. ..."
Read the rest of this Al-Jazeera contributor's rant here.
This Moonbat doesn't believe that the insurgent terrorists have been killing innocent Iraqi citizens.
He thinks the White House and the American Military want a civil war in Iraq.
He thinks that the new Iraqi Government wants a civil war in Iraq.
He therefore must believe that if the U.S. Military were to leave Iraq immediately there would be no ore fighting and just peace and love everywhere.
This boy is out there.
:(
Sunday, March 05, 2006
The Buffoon Factor - Fairly Unbalanced
Media Matters - O'Reilly threatened radio show caller with "a little visit" from "Fox security" for mentioning Olbermann's name on the air:
Summary: On his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly threatened to turn over the personal information of a caller to 'Fox security' because the caller mentioned MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. As Media Matters has noted, in recent weeks, Olbermann has repeatedly awarded O'Reilly the 'Worst Person in the World' designation during his show, MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. ..."
What's up with Mr. O'Reilly huh? Is he losing it? Did I hear him say or read somewhere that he was planning to retire?
The guy didn't say squat, only "Keith Olberman".
" The caller began by telling O'Reilly, "I like to listen to you during the day." Continuing, the caller stated, "I think Keith Olbermann's show," at which point O'Reilly disconnected the call, proclaiming: "Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit. ..."
He didn't even say anything nasty like "O'Reilly, you bloviating, porcine bastard.", or "O'Reilly, you fairly unbalanced, preening buffoon."
Even if someone actually said this O'Reiily wouldn't have a case. He has a call-in radio show, he askes people to call him, his show has a delay, they could cut anything out if they want.
It's fun to see O'Reilly rip apart and shout down some terrorist sympathizer or paedophile-coddling judge. But when he pulls this whacko bully stuff, it's just sadly pathetic.
CALLING ALL Howard Stern phone pranksters! Don't you dare call and goof Bill O'Reilly's show! You'll get in real trouble.
LOL...
Baba Buey to ya all!
:)
Summary: On his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly threatened to turn over the personal information of a caller to 'Fox security' because the caller mentioned MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. As Media Matters has noted, in recent weeks, Olbermann has repeatedly awarded O'Reilly the 'Worst Person in the World' designation during his show, MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann. ..."
What's up with Mr. O'Reilly huh? Is he losing it? Did I hear him say or read somewhere that he was planning to retire?
The guy didn't say squat, only "Keith Olberman".
" The caller began by telling O'Reilly, "I like to listen to you during the day." Continuing, the caller stated, "I think Keith Olbermann's show," at which point O'Reilly disconnected the call, proclaiming: "Mike is -- he's a gone guy. You know, we have his -- we have your phone numbers, by the way. So, if you're listening, Mike, we have your phone number, and we're going to turn it over to Fox security, and you'll be getting a little visit. ..."
He didn't even say anything nasty like "O'Reilly, you bloviating, porcine bastard.", or "O'Reilly, you fairly unbalanced, preening buffoon."
Even if someone actually said this O'Reiily wouldn't have a case. He has a call-in radio show, he askes people to call him, his show has a delay, they could cut anything out if they want.
It's fun to see O'Reilly rip apart and shout down some terrorist sympathizer or paedophile-coddling judge. But when he pulls this whacko bully stuff, it's just sadly pathetic.
CALLING ALL Howard Stern phone pranksters! Don't you dare call and goof Bill O'Reilly's show! You'll get in real trouble.
LOL...
Baba Buey to ya all!
:)
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Mr. PRESIDENT! It's Not Islamophobia , It's IslamISTphobia!
This thing with the Ports, it's NOT Islamophobia , it's IslamISTphobia! Do you hear that and understand this President Bush, Charles Krauthammer, Larry Kudlow, Jack Kemp and David Brooks, and RealClearPolitics?
My definition of IslamISTphobia: A rational and justified fear of violent radical IslamOfascists whose ideology calls for enslaving the planet with a world Caliphate and Sharia Law for everyone on Earth.
Islamophobia - Bad
IslamISTphobia - GOOD
Got it? IslamISTphobia: Don't be afraid of it, embrace it.
Tony Blankley boils down this 'Ports Deal' stuff: Townhall.com :: Columns :: Islamistphobia-phobia by Tony Blankley - Mar 1, 2006:
"Islamistphobia-phobia
Not by chance, some months ago -- well before the Dubai port issue had emerged -- I had had extended conversations with senior executives of an American port management company. They had explained the close inter-working of the management team with the Coast Guard, Customs and local law enforcement in trying to secure the full import process (which starts at foreign ports and continues on board ship, through the terminal and includes local law enforcement -- with management an active agent of that strived-for seamless process) .
Based on that and other research I had carried out last year for my book, I understood that merely repeating the mantra that "security is exclusively run by the Coast Guard, Customs and Homeland Security" -- as we heard late last week -- was somewhere between an incomplete and a deceptive statement. But for those with a limited knowledge of the topic and other policy axes to grind, once they were fed the mantra, it was a short step to the nativist, Islamophobic charge.
Of course Islamophobia is a repulsive mentality -- suggestive of old-fashioned hate of others. But, as Denmark's leading Islamic scholar, Jacob Skovgaard-Petersen, explained in 2004, there is a different and growing phobia, which he named "Islamistphobia." This is not an atavistic hatred of another man's skin or faith or last name, but is instead the fear of the ideas and conduct of radical Muslims. ..."
IslamISTphobia is a good thing, we must embrace it, not run from it, hide from it, or deny it. More and more people MUST become IslamISTphobic if we Planet Dwellers hope to eliminate this viscious, soulless disease of a growing number of hearts and minds.
The aforementioned big names running interference for the Prez seem to believe, or are acting like they believe, that Arab sensitivity is more important that America's sensitivity, security and/or peace of mind.
I wonder if they would approve of outsourcing Homeland Security to Saudi Arabia to Please Arabs?
In fact, many middle-easterners will probably laugh their asses off in disbelief if this deal goes through.
In their eyes we will be even BIGGER fools than they already think we are.
Do you really think for one minute that Arab nations would allow the U.S., the 'Great Satan', to run their ports?
They would never stand for it. No way!
We can make it up to the United Arab Emirates and other Arab countries in other ways. I'm not saying we should give them a break on the stolen children camel racing problems they have, but we'll think of something.
Frontpage Mag interviewed David Holly back in October about his very worthwhile and vital campaign to educate the masses about "The Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam".
Read it all folks, and then read it again and again later and later.
This is a healthy and prudent fear that we should all seek out and strive to internalize.
Please spread the word, help save our planet from global slavery.
:(
My definition of IslamISTphobia: A rational and justified fear of violent radical IslamOfascists whose ideology calls for enslaving the planet with a world Caliphate and Sharia Law for everyone on Earth.
Islamophobia - Bad
IslamISTphobia - GOOD
Got it? IslamISTphobia: Don't be afraid of it, embrace it.
Tony Blankley boils down this 'Ports Deal' stuff: Townhall.com :: Columns :: Islamistphobia-phobia by Tony Blankley - Mar 1, 2006:
"Islamistphobia-phobia
Not by chance, some months ago -- well before the Dubai port issue had emerged -- I had had extended conversations with senior executives of an American port management company. They had explained the close inter-working of the management team with the Coast Guard, Customs and local law enforcement in trying to secure the full import process (which starts at foreign ports and continues on board ship, through the terminal and includes local law enforcement -- with management an active agent of that strived-for seamless process) .
Based on that and other research I had carried out last year for my book, I understood that merely repeating the mantra that "security is exclusively run by the Coast Guard, Customs and Homeland Security" -- as we heard late last week -- was somewhere between an incomplete and a deceptive statement. But for those with a limited knowledge of the topic and other policy axes to grind, once they were fed the mantra, it was a short step to the nativist, Islamophobic charge.
Of course Islamophobia is a repulsive mentality -- suggestive of old-fashioned hate of others. But, as Denmark's leading Islamic scholar, Jacob Skovgaard-Petersen, explained in 2004, there is a different and growing phobia, which he named "Islamistphobia." This is not an atavistic hatred of another man's skin or faith or last name, but is instead the fear of the ideas and conduct of radical Muslims. ..."
IslamISTphobia is a good thing, we must embrace it, not run from it, hide from it, or deny it. More and more people MUST become IslamISTphobic if we Planet Dwellers hope to eliminate this viscious, soulless disease of a growing number of hearts and minds.
The aforementioned big names running interference for the Prez seem to believe, or are acting like they believe, that Arab sensitivity is more important that America's sensitivity, security and/or peace of mind.
I wonder if they would approve of outsourcing Homeland Security to Saudi Arabia to Please Arabs?
In fact, many middle-easterners will probably laugh their asses off in disbelief if this deal goes through.
In their eyes we will be even BIGGER fools than they already think we are.
Do you really think for one minute that Arab nations would allow the U.S., the 'Great Satan', to run their ports?
They would never stand for it. No way!
We can make it up to the United Arab Emirates and other Arab countries in other ways. I'm not saying we should give them a break on the stolen children camel racing problems they have, but we'll think of something.
Frontpage Mag interviewed David Holly back in October about his very worthwhile and vital campaign to educate the masses about "The Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam".
Read it all folks, and then read it again and again later and later.
This is a healthy and prudent fear that we should all seek out and strive to internalize.
Please spread the word, help save our planet from global slavery.
:(
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
