Communications from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization indicate that China has demonstrated the capacities of its Snow Leopard SWAT team in maneuvers near Kashgar earlier this month. Visitors from Central Asian states were in attendance. The scenario involved the setting up of a terrorist base near Kashgar and a bus taken hostage.
Perhaps showing this exercise to China's partners in the SCO underscores that they'd better not get any ideas about growing sympathy for another Muslim Central Asian people getting restive under a "Big Brother" who takes seriously his role as the last, best hope for 20th century totalitarianism.
Showing posts with label jihad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jihad. Show all posts
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Osama Bin Laden is Dead
I recall 9/11, with people jumping to their deaths from 100 stories up, and NYC emergency workers covered in dust and grime until it was impossible to tell the color of their uniforms. I thought of the terror that must have gone through the minds of the passengers on the doomed airplanes as they went to their fiery deaths.
And I remember watching broadcasts of the eruptions of joy across the Islamic world, including "poor, martyred Falastin", where a fat lady in hijab and ugly glasses jigged for the cameras. Bin Laden crowed that "only Muslims" could be so brave and daring. But then, the bombs started falling on the great Mujahed's hideouts, and OBL and all his fans started wailing how 9/11 was really the work of the [**Drumroll!**]----JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ! (For the record, Uncle Cephas is a Christian). Oh, how wondrous were the brave lions of jihad as soon as things got just a little bit hot for them! Not only do they blame the people they accuse of being the kin of apes and pigs (Qur'an 5:60), but, I understand, either OBL himself or one of his guards hid behind a woman when the Navy Seals burst in.
And now, the forces of Jihad are going to take vengeance! Ten-year-old Coptic girls in Egypt will be raped. Dirt-poor Christian farmers in Pakistan will be forced off their smallholdings or tenancies by the mujaheddin of the people's justice. Maybe a 150% PeeCee EmCee female aid worker or journalist in some impoverished Islamic land will also be gang-raped for being a Westerner. All this, plus the murder of a few Christian shopkeepers, the stoning of Tunisia's last synagogues, and the like will surely vindicate the honor of Islam against the "crusaders".
But, thanks, OBL. Your disciples' actions forced me and many other Americans to consider the teachings of your violent, supremacist, misogynistic, bullying, so-called religion that sanctifies every unclean lust of young males, from theft (if it's from the Kufr) to rape in detailed passages on Qur'an, Hadith, and their classical commentaries. Now I raise my middle finger to all the Western moral equivalence mongers who, without having cracked the Bible in years, whine that "the Bible is also violent!" No, you folks know all too well that Christianity gave you much of what you value from art to constitutional government, even as you mock us Christians and cringe lest you haply insult a Muslim.
To Noam Chomsky and all his Troofer crowd, to the learned doctors of Al-Azhar who are now saying that OBL's burial at sea was a sin while ignoring his mass murder, EAT CROW!
And, congratulations to our Navy Seals, intelligence workers, troops everywhere, and even to Mr. Obama, our CINC.
Finally, a Scripture for OBL and his fallen comrades:
...For their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh (Isaiah 66:24, echoed by Jesus Christ in Mark 9:48.)
And I remember watching broadcasts of the eruptions of joy across the Islamic world, including "poor, martyred Falastin", where a fat lady in hijab and ugly glasses jigged for the cameras. Bin Laden crowed that "only Muslims" could be so brave and daring. But then, the bombs started falling on the great Mujahed's hideouts, and OBL and all his fans started wailing how 9/11 was really the work of the [**Drumroll!**]----JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ! (For the record, Uncle Cephas is a Christian). Oh, how wondrous were the brave lions of jihad as soon as things got just a little bit hot for them! Not only do they blame the people they accuse of being the kin of apes and pigs (Qur'an 5:60), but, I understand, either OBL himself or one of his guards hid behind a woman when the Navy Seals burst in.
And now, the forces of Jihad are going to take vengeance! Ten-year-old Coptic girls in Egypt will be raped. Dirt-poor Christian farmers in Pakistan will be forced off their smallholdings or tenancies by the mujaheddin of the people's justice. Maybe a 150% PeeCee EmCee female aid worker or journalist in some impoverished Islamic land will also be gang-raped for being a Westerner. All this, plus the murder of a few Christian shopkeepers, the stoning of Tunisia's last synagogues, and the like will surely vindicate the honor of Islam against the "crusaders".
But, thanks, OBL. Your disciples' actions forced me and many other Americans to consider the teachings of your violent, supremacist, misogynistic, bullying, so-called religion that sanctifies every unclean lust of young males, from theft (if it's from the Kufr) to rape in detailed passages on Qur'an, Hadith, and their classical commentaries. Now I raise my middle finger to all the Western moral equivalence mongers who, without having cracked the Bible in years, whine that "the Bible is also violent!" No, you folks know all too well that Christianity gave you much of what you value from art to constitutional government, even as you mock us Christians and cringe lest you haply insult a Muslim.
To Noam Chomsky and all his Troofer crowd, to the learned doctors of Al-Azhar who are now saying that OBL's burial at sea was a sin while ignoring his mass murder, EAT CROW!
And, congratulations to our Navy Seals, intelligence workers, troops everywhere, and even to Mr. Obama, our CINC.
Finally, a Scripture for OBL and his fallen comrades:
...For their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh (Isaiah 66:24, echoed by Jesus Christ in Mark 9:48.)
Saturday, July 24, 2010
What the dickens is this?
Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer reports the following:
********************
July 24, 2010
Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex
Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).
He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).
And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife -- not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."
Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.
"Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal," by Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, July 23 (thanks to CameoRed):
From today's opinion in S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), a domestic restraining order case:
The record reflects that plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. [FN1] The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant's employment in this country as an accountant....
[Long discussion of the wife's allegations of abuse, which included several instances of nonconsensual sex as well as other abuse, omitted for space reasons. -EV]
Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her
this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.
After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in nonconsensual sex while plaintiff cried. Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant's mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff....[...]
While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant's advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff's contrary wishes.
Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff's domestic violence action....
The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
A close call. But no doubt more of this is to come.
*****************
My comment:
How culturally relativistic have we become? With any other demographic, this case would've been called rape. How is it that a supposedly "secular" American jurist now gives a Muslim male a blank check to abuse his wife because of something in Bukhari?
American liberalism has apparently become so open-minded that its brains have fallen right out of its head.
********************
July 24, 2010
Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex
Muhammad said: "If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).
He also said: "By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel's saddle" (Ibn Majah 1854).
And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife -- not because he didn't do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."
Luckily, the appellate court overturned this decision, and a Sharia ruling by an American court has not been allowed to stand. This time.
"Cultural Defense Accepted as to Nonconsensual Sex in New Jersey Trial Court, Rejected on Appeal," by Eugene Volokh in The Volokh Conspiracy, July 23 (thanks to CameoRed):
From today's opinion in S.D. v. M.J.R. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.), a domestic restraining order case:
The record reflects that plaintiff, S.D., and defendant, M.J.R., are citizens of Morocco and adherents to the Muslim faith. They were wed in Morocco in an arranged marriage on July 31, 2008, when plaintiff was seventeen years old. [FN1] The parties did not know each other prior to the marriage. On August 29, 2008, they came to New Jersey as the result of defendant's employment in this country as an accountant....
[Long discussion of the wife's allegations of abuse, which included several instances of nonconsensual sex as well as other abuse, omitted for space reasons. -EV]
Upon their return to the apartment, defendant forced plaintiff to have sex with him while she cried. Plaintiff testified that defendant always told her
this is according to our religion. You are my wife, I c[an] do anything to you. The woman, she should submit and do anything I ask her to do.
After having sex, defendant took plaintiff to a travel agency to buy a ticket for her return to Morocco. However the ticket was not purchased, and the couple returned to the apartment. Once there, defendant threatened divorce, but nonetheless again engaged in nonconsensual sex while plaintiff cried. Later that day, defendant and his mother took plaintiff to the home of the Imam and, in the presence of the Imam, his wife, and defendant's mother, defendant verbally divorced plaintiff....[...]
While recognizing that defendant had engaged in sexual relations with plaintiff against her expressed wishes in November 2008 and on the night of January 15 to 16, 2009, the judge did not find sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct to have been proven. He stated:
This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.
After acknowledging that this was a case in which religious custom clashed with the law, and that under the law, plaintiff had a right to refuse defendant's advances, the judge found that defendant did not act with a criminal intent when he repeatedly insisted upon intercourse, despite plaintiff's contrary wishes.
Having found acts of domestic violence consisting of assault and harassment to have occurred, the judge turned to the issue of whether a final restraining order should be entered. He found such an order unnecessary, vacated the temporary restraints previously entered in the matter and dismissed plaintiff's domestic violence action....
The appellate court reversed this absurd decision, saying:
As the judge recognized, the case thus presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts. In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken.
A close call. But no doubt more of this is to come.
*****************
My comment:
How culturally relativistic have we become? With any other demographic, this case would've been called rape. How is it that a supposedly "secular" American jurist now gives a Muslim male a blank check to abuse his wife because of something in Bukhari?
American liberalism has apparently become so open-minded that its brains have fallen right out of its head.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)