Article

2006-11-30 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Ayathollah's Stoning Practises for Effective Cutting and Bone Breaking

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-11-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hey President Bush - what do you say NOW about the Religion of Peace?

Idiot.

Yes I do criticize my Commander in Chief because he is flat WRONG on this issue and persists in using that term when it simply gives cover to the evil that Islam creates, nurtures, harbors and spreads like a plague.

The above is all the proof any rational person needs to see. So the President has no excuses.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-30 01:53|| 2006-11-30 01:53|| Front Page Top

#2 Old Spook:

It doesn't look good on the surface, but something is probably underway.

I wanna know why stoning law allows male targets to free their arms. Do they get to try batting away the rocks?

Posted by Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-11-30 03:53|| 2006-11-30 03:53|| Front Page Top

#3 For all:

I don't know if Bush believed or still believes the ROP BS. But Bush (like Lincoln before him) cannot tell openly what he thinks. If he did he would cause greater losses of American lives. Let's remind that Afganistan and Irak were invaded from bases in Muslim countries. the Taliban and Saddam would be still in power if he had presnted the things as a war agsint Islam. I think it is, and that Islam like slavery before it, must be eradicated. But at the beginning of civil war Lincoln didn't presnt it as a war agsint slavery: if he had did, the four states of the high south who remained loyal woiuld have joined the rebels, a number of military men who were crucial into South's defat and who reamined loyal to the Union despite being southerners would have joined the rebels, a number of Northerners who joined ythe army fought for teh Union and for the principle of Democracy (who imples that if you lose elections you shut up intead of seceding) but even when they against slavery were NOT ready to give their lives for abolishing it. In other words, had Lincoln, openly told early 1861 that he was going to abolish slavery it would have ended with the CSA winning the war and slavery still soiling american soil.

Same thing for Bush. He may not just tell that Islam is evil and must disappear.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2006-11-30 06:29|| 2006-11-30 06:29|| Front Page Top

#4 True enough, JFM, Bush cannot openly state that this is a "war against Islam"; if he did that, all Hell would break loose.

But I think we'd be in a LOT better shape today, with regard to both the American peoples' support for the war and the Islamic world's response to our efforts, if he had made it clear from the beginning that we regard "Islam is a religion of peace" and "democracy and freedom from tyranny will cure what ails the Islamic world" only as testable hypotheses-- and that we will be looking with eyes wide open at all evidence which might prove or disprove them.

Instead, it looks to me very much like Bush actually believes these things, takes them on blind faith. And as a result, faced with massive evidence that Islam is NOT a religion of peace and that democracy and freedom are NOT going to cure what ails the Islamic/Arab world, he has sunk into paralysis.

That's the way it looks to me, anyway...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-11-30 07:25|| 2006-11-30 07:25|| Front Page Top

#5 Bush has redefined the 'war on terror' to be a war on Islamic fascism, he knows the score.

Just couldn't say it openly, but by degrees he is

Posted by anon1 2006-11-30 09:25|| 2006-11-30 09:25|| Front Page Top

#6 I for one can only wish for all Hell to break loose. Let's get the show on the road.

Posted by Excalibur 2006-11-30 10:01|| 2006-11-30 10:01|| Front Page Top

#7 President Bush need not state the whole trught about this beign a war on Islamic fundamentalism and its fascist backers - he only needs to STOP using the term "Religion of Peace" - it is a lie that gives the extremists cover. Islam only gives the peace of the enslaved, and subsequently of the dead, like those in Darfur.

Posted by OldSpook 2006-11-30 10:11|| 2006-11-30 10:11|| Front Page Top

#8 Hell is gonna break loose anyway. Better earlier while they don't have a lot of WMDs than later when they do and give us a highter butcher's bill.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2006-11-30 10:30|| 2006-11-30 10:30|| Front Page Top

#9 OldSpook has this one nailed, folks.

I don't know if Bush believed or still believes the ROP BS. But Bush (like Lincoln before him) cannot tell openly what he thinks. If he did he would cause greater losses of American lives.

I have to challenge this notion. While I agree that Bush would be well advised not to take on the entire Muslim world all at once, he effectively blew the midterm elections by not educating our public more about how pervasive Islam's threat really is.

Failing to do so lost many pro-war voters who saw little or no difference between Bush's mealy-mouthed equivocating about his own War on Terrorism and the downright appeasement of Democratic candidates. JFM, you say how, "If he did he would cause greater losses of American lives." I maintain that the ascendancy of appeasing Democrats may well get even more American killed with repeats of 9-11 style atrocities.

Too much of Bush's political calculus was skewed by what can only be interpreted as PC mentality. Be it Rice's condemnation of Israel's righteous pounding of Lebanese based Hezbollah or Bush's unwillingness to go beyond Islamofascism in his addressing of Muslim hostility for the West.

But I think we'd be in a LOT better shape today, with regard to both the American peoples' support for the war and the Islamic world's response to our efforts, if he had made it clear from the beginning that we regard "Islam is a religion of peace" and "democracy and freedom from tyranny will cure what ails the Islamic world" only as testable hypotheses-- and that we will be looking with eyes wide open at all evidence which might prove or disprove them.

Instead, it looks to me very much like Bush actually believes these things, takes them on blind faith. And as a result, faced with massive evidence that Islam is NOT a religion of peace and that democracy and freedom are NOT going to cure what ails the Islamic/Arab world, he has sunk into paralysis.

I could not agree with you more, David D.

President Bush need not state the whole trught about this beign a war on Islamic fundamentalism and its fascist backers - he only needs to STOP using the term "Religion of Peace" - it is a lie that gives the extremists cover. Islam only gives the peace of the enslaved, and subsequently of the dead, like those in Darfur.

I agree, OldSpook. There are a lot of ~~dead bodies~~ undeniable indications that Islam has as much to do with peace as trout did with inventing the bicycle.

I still maintain that the single most important step we can take is stripping Islam of its status as an officially recognized religion. We need to require significant reforms for it to regain such recognition. Foreswearing jihad, ending gender apartheid, eliminating the death penalty for apostasy and establishment of true religious freedom in Muslim majority countries are criteria that must all be met before any reinstatement.

By doing so, we could then eliminate Islam's tax-free status, curtail pro-jihad language as no longer being protected speech and enact a host of other Islam unfriendly measures that would make America increasingly unattractive to Muslim immigration.

Furthermore, this one action would also begin the loang and arduous migration of public opinion towards understanding that unreformed Islam is a political ideology and NOT a religion. This is the bedrock of what will be needed to prepare America for the coming clash of civilizations. Too obviously, none of our politicians have the spine for such measures. This alters not one whit the validity of what I have posted.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-30 13:12|| 2006-11-30 13:12|| Front Page Top

#10 If Bush was smart, he could expose Islam while defending them, making himself look like an idiot. Since the left already believes he is an idiot, they would follow the logic and understand the savagery of Islam, the religion of violence, dhimmitude, slavery, ritual stonings, and beheadings.

Posted by wxjames 2006-11-30 13:45|| 2006-11-30 13:45|| Front Page Top

#11 I thought if you can dig yourself out while stoning, you're scot-free.

inherently unfair, and they do have a fixation on the bust. Remember the face covering? Supposed to cover your bosoms in public.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-11-30 14:14|| 2006-11-30 14:14|| Front Page Top

#12 OS & Zen, right on target. Zen, rant #9 a masterpiece. Pretty much encompanses my feelings.

Posted by SpecOp35 2006-11-30 15:30|| 2006-11-30 15:30|| Front Page Top

#13 Welcome to the religion of pieces. I realize that open boards for terrorist Bush can't speak his mind. But to be honest sometimes I wonder if he has one.

We have Muslim terrorist flooding over our borders, Muslims still being given visas, Muslimes in England that were planning on dropping a half dozen planes on our citys, need I go on? There are times guys when you have to call a spade a spade. We are at war with Islam and it's time to go public. Now how we do it is another matter.

The rock apes of Allen are going to hit us again. Keeping silent about this isn't going to stop it nor make it less worse. Anyways I'm not thinking our current President has the brain pan nor balls to deal with it.

That being said, God Bless the President, this one and the next.

Posted by Icerigger 2006-11-30 16:08|| 2006-11-30 16:08|| Front Page Top

#14 Zen, rant #9 a masterpiece.

Thank you, SpecOp35. Of late, I've been hard at work stitching together the whole Religion versus Ideology debate and how it needs to apply towards making America more Muslim unfriendly. Eliminating Islam's protected status as a religion simultaneously serves so many important purposes that I cannot imagine a more direct and functional approach.

An important aspect of this is our politicians taking to task Islam, not Islamists or Islamofascists or Islamic terrorists or Jihadists, repeat; Islam plain and simple must be taken to task for its obvious shortcomings. Skeered of going head-to-head regarding terrorism? Fine take a stance on the gender apartheid issue. Running for office in a Mormon district? Fine, knock Islam over its death penalty for apostasy or conversion.

Islam is a HUGE target and somehow no-fucking-body is managing to hit the broad side of this ~~mosque~~ ~~weapons depot~~ ~~indoctrination center~~ barn. America's politicians had better improve their aim, or they can expect the public to begin aiming their anger at both the ballot box and Muslims alike.

If politicians hold the rule of law so fucking dear, they had best make sure it continues to protect the average American. Here's a BIG FUCKING CLUE; The average American isn't a Muslim. Anyone introducing special legislation to provied unequal protection for Muslims had better be ready for a very short stint in office.

OFF TOPIC: By the way, SpecOp35, you were right about the beliefs of that Fremont man who got beat down by his sons after murdering their mother. I tried to post the followup article during the Commenting Form Upgrade fiasco and for some reason it never got onto the Local Page. Maybe I'll try and post it again today.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2006-11-30 16:52|| 2006-11-30 16:52|| Front Page Top

#15 More than five years ago I wrote this about President Bush and his unwillingness to call the enemy by his proper name:

"October 18, 2001 Why is it that the Bush Administration has not acknowledged the fact that we are at war with an idea? This idea runs parallel to the shadowy world of terrorist hideaways, safe houses, and training bases.

Were told its difficult to hold accountable and punish a shadowy network of extremist guerrilla leaders and their foot soldiers. Our leaders tell us the terrorist networks thrive as amorphous enemies of freedom. Well, is this true? Others suggest terrorism reflects pure hatred of freedom; that terrorism occurs in a vacuum bereft of an idea or ideology. Does it?

The terrorists, were told, hijacked Islam itself to wage jihad against the progressive and modernizing West and the peaceful Muslim majority. Oh, really?

The West cannot conduct a war against terrorism without first confronting the Weltanschauung (worldview) that fuels the terrorists raison detre. Ultimately, we are at war with an idea. And that menacing idea, whose presence was made known loud and clear on September 11, 2001, is nihilistic Islamic absolutism (NIA). ...

Until President Bush and our American leaders acknowledge that the real enemy is nihilistic Islamic absolutism swathed in the fabric of the Wahhabi sect and armed with an array of weaponry and evil intentions, we will be shooting at shadows." -- At War With An Idea

Sad to admit, but as long as President Bush speaks this RoP BS, we'll be shooting at shadows.

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-11-30 20:26|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com] 2006-11-30 20:26|| Front Page Top

07:34 Besoeker
14:10 Zenster
23:58 JosephMendiola
23:49 BA
23:49 JosephMendiola
23:45 JosephMendiola
23:32 KBK
23:30 Jan
23:26 SteveS
23:23 Icerigger
23:21 trailing wife
23:21 FOTSGreg
23:19 Icerigger
23:18 Icerigger
23:14 Icerigger
23:10 Ptah
23:09 Icerigger
23:08 BA
23:06 Icerigger
22:59 USN,Ret
22:54 Captain America
22:52 .com
22:46 Elmert Crosh5077
22:40 Mick Dundee