For months we have followed here the deteriorating situation of Christians in Iraq, as the Sharia impulse reasserts itself. This is a problem that is not going to go away, and is only going to get worse, because those who can do anything about it don't care, either because they themselves don't believe, despite lip-service, in the equality of non-Muslims with Muslims, or because they have convinced themselves that Islam is a religion of peace, mercy, and tolerance -- and therefore these things either aren't happening at all or are just being perpetrated by a tiny minority of extremists that is of no great significance.
From the Christian Science Monitor, with thanks to Sharon and Susan:
BAGHDAD – It was 10:30 in the morning, almost four months ago, and the children were getting ready for church. Aziz Raad Azzo, 5 years old, was drinking his milk; his 14-year-old sister Raneen was putting on her new clothes. When they heard a car pull up, Raneen, thinking her father was home, ran to the window and flung open the shutters. Four men shot her and her little brother in the head. The children's crime: Their father, a Christian storekeeper, had sold alcohol.Before the murders, the family received a photocopied death threat. "We are warning you, the enemies of God and Islam, from selling alcohol again, and unless you stop we will kill you and send you to hell where a worse fate awaits you," reads the warning, signed by "Harakat Ansar al-Islam," the Partisans of Islam Movement.
These murderers were not warping the peaceful teachings of Islam. They were following an established principle of Islamic law: dhimmis "are forbidden to openly display wine or pork" (Umdat al-Salik, o11.4(6)). Above all this means they are not to sell it in a place where Muslims can buy it.
Another atrocity perpetrated by Muslim warriors
killing children in the name of Allah, The Merciful and Compassionate! Also another example of terrorising minority groups in this 'peaceful and tolerant' religion. They're a pack of cowardly murdering thugs living in the stone age,
making their country into a infertile, unproductive desert. One almost dispairs of changing this warped inhuman mind concept.
So, what is Bush going to do to protect them?
Better yet, what is Bush going to do when the Shi'ite MAJORITY in Iraq votes in full Sharia law?
Are there any conservative republicans out there that can answer this simple question? Anyone?
Are there any Liberal Democrats out there who can answer:
Why some of their staff members were spies for Iraq? (at least One that we know of).
Why Teresa Heinz-Kerry gives so Much support to Terrorist-aiding 'charities'?
Why Kerry and Edwards are all over ea... hmmm. Never mind that one.
This is not a perfect world, Kj. We have No control over what happens after we leave (sort of like the Cold War, eh? If only we had listened to Patton...) But Bush will Still do more to improve it than Carter, Clinton, Kerry ever have or would.
Keith,
glad to see you're back online, with a shorthand nick! Always a pleasure to spar with you. I'm a conservative republican, I'll give it a go, answering your questions.
What is Bush going to do to protect them? Probably nothing more than any european leader will be doing. a few harsh words about human rights, that's about it. Remember, the point was to establish a sovereign nation.
What will Bush do when they vote in Sharia? see answer to question 1 above.
Am I happy with this answer? No. Do I wish that something will be done? Yes, of course; but this isn't Bush's fault, it's the fault of the islamic sphincters' who shot these kids. With or without our intervention in Iraq, this has been going on in ANY islamic country you would care to name for as long as there has been Islam.
That having been said, let's put the shoe on the other foot so to speak. If Kerry wins in November, what will he do in the above questions? I believe the same answer applies, subtracting the harsh words.
Why is it that your aim in all your posts is to somehow find a way to bash Bush and his administration, instead of dealing with the subject at hand (Islamofacists and their intent to put all us infidels to the same fate as these poor kids)? This crap has been going on in the Sudan for years, along with slavery, rape, torture, and has been reported here in JW, but I don't recall you condemning acts like this in that country (correct me if I'm wrong). Is it because we haven't intervened there? That there's no "hook" to catch and claw at Bush with in the Sudan?
Further, where's your outrage at the MF's who puller the trigger? How about outrage at the lack of help being offered to these people by the UN or any of the European nations? No outrage at the incredible corruption in the UN with the Oil For Food program ($5Billion absconded with!). Instead, you always find a slant to attack Bush, not the people truly at fault, in any and all of your posts here.
I'm not in favor of everything that Bush has done in his presidency, but I reserve comments on that for a different forum. Knock the crap off and stick to the issue at hand, uniting in an anti-jihad movement that might accomplish something.
What we need is some sort of charity to support Christian defense groups in places like Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq, etc. Any ideas?
“Your grandchildren will be freedom fighters against islamo fascists.”
Ancient Mandean (the Mandeans are a gnostic sect, numbering about 60,000 in the world) libraries have been destroyed by Muslims in the past year; this has received no coverage in the world press. The dozen or so Christian families remaining in Ramadi have all been forcibly converted to Islam, the women kidnapped by Muslims and not returned. In Basra Christians have been murdered for selling alcohol; as this story indicates, even a 5-year-old may be murdered by a Muslim protecting his faith from the sheer outrage of a bottle of beer being sold. Chaldean and Assyrian Christians alike have suffered, and will continue to suffer. And in the back of their heads is always the truth about Islam, that they dare not complain about openly to the Western or world press, because they fear that what happened to the Assyrians in 1933, a few months after the British left, will happen to them. They hope, they wait, they despair, they wait. What will happen? Allawi is said to be "secular" and so far, he is a great improvement over that sinister, snake-like Baghdadian Vicar of Bray, that old Nasserite pan-Arabist, the talented and completely untrustworthy Adnan Pachachi, but will he be in control, or the Shi'a who, while much is made of Al-Sistani's differences with the Iranian mullahs, are quite firm on the need for Sharia. And under Sharia, Christians will suffer. No need to worry, at least, about Iraq's Jews. Though they had lived there for nearly two thousand years before Islam arrived, they have all been driven out of that country; such events as the famous Farhud or pogrom of June 1-2, 1941, after the government of Rashid Ali fell (Muslim rage against the British was taken out, naturally, on the local non-Muslims, just as Pakistani Muslims attacked the American Embassy when Muslim rebels seized the mosque in Mecca in late November 1979 -- it all has a certain Muslim logic/illogic to it), helped encourage them to leave, and the pogroms and riots of 1948 helped as well. And the last few dozens left after the public hanging of a dozen Jews (accompanied by a Christian or two), in the main square of Baghdad, back in the late 1960s, a public hanging of complete innocents labelled "Zionist spies" whose murders were viewed, and cheered deliriously, by a half-million Iraqis, many of them, no doubt, along with their children and grandchildren, now able to enjoy all the largesse lavished upon them by the American taxpayer.
Sheik Canuck [swt] Allah be praised...
How about 'Crusader Action.' Or 'Crusaders against Militants and Shites - CAMAS.'
Greetings
Actually, as a conservative Republican, I note that in some of the southern provinces of Iraq, which are majority Shi'ah, they voted in secularly-leaning candidates when local elections were held. Also, the new interior minister of Iraq recently made a statement condemning the attacks on Christians, stating that the Assyrians are original Iraqis, and entitled to every protection.
BTW, do I understand that KJ supports keeping a US military presence in Iraq and acting like the colonialist bully there? That's the only thing Bush can do to protect Iraq's minorities (there are Mandaeans and Yezidis there, too--although I understand the last Jews may have left).
Gary: Are there any Liberal Democrats out there who can answer:
Why some of their staff members were spies for Iraq? (at least One that we know of).
Where did you hear that? On Rush, or Hannity? And did you hear that Ahmed Chalabi is an Iranian spy? What a surprise! America, Iran's "great Satan" tricked by Chalabi into deposing Saddam so Iran can take over Iraq (with majority Shi'ite votes.)
Why Teresa Heinz-Kerry gives so Much support to Terrorist-aiding 'charities'?
She gives away something like 50 million dollars a year... do you think she knows where every penny goes? Bush, Inc. has lost hundred of millions of dollars in Iraq "contracts"
Why Kerry and Edwards are all over ea... hmmm. Never mind that one.
Ha ha, oink oink.... they "must" be sissies, obviously. Just like Hillary the lesbian, eh? The lady that was having an affair with Vince Foster?
This is not a perfect world, Kj. We have No control over what happens after we leave (sort of like the Cold War, eh? If only we had listened to Patton...) But Bush will Still do more to improve it than Carter, Clinton, Kerry ever have or would.
"Improve" what? The lives of Iraqi citizens that are going to be enslaved by Sharia? Saddam was an asshole, true. But there were women attorneys and lawyers, doctors, professors, etc. in Iraq. Soon they will all get "Taliban-ized."
So THIS was Bush's plan: to get Saddam out of the picture so the Shi'ite majority could vote in a set of laws EXACTLY like Iran? That was the plan? I never have believed that we "went there for oil" but goddam, what did we think was going to happen in a Shi'ite-majority nation once we implemented "democracy"?
Now, maybe you can answer some questions for me:
Why is James Baker (you've probably never heard of him, but look him up) defending the Saudis in the lawsuit against them by the survivors and widows of 9-11? The wives of dead firemen & etc. are suing Saudi Arabia for raising up a bunch of jihadi terrorists and fomenting anger toward us in their schools, churches, etc. and producing monsters like Bin Laden and Mohamed Atta and James Baker is helping the pigf*cking Saudis fight OUR murdered firemen's widows and kids. Why don't you explain that to me, and spare me the eighth-grade sissy jokes.
Keith,
Okay, answers for Gary, but none for the main question I asked you: Why, on this forum, must everything you post attack Bush (or his administration, or conservatives in general)? Again, why not answer that question?
Your issues you have with said attack targets would have far greater weight to convince if this theme wasn't present in every post I've seen from you, coupled with a lack of interest in issues that are quite relevant to the fight against jihad but have no attack value against Bush et al.
Come on, answer the question. I'm genuinely interested to know your answer on this.
Colt Walker sez:
Keith,
glad to see ...(snip)... Remember, the point was to establish a sovereign nation.
Oh? I thought the point was to get those noo-kyoo-ler weapons that were about to hit us. Oh, wait, the point was to depose Saddam... no, wait, the point was to punish Saddam... no, wait, the point was to make sure the people of Iraq had running water and electricity.
So when they get their "sovereignity" they can vote in Sharia, right?
What will Bush do when they vote in Sharia? see answer to question 1 above.
I.e.: not a single damn thing. All those dead GIs and all those GIs missing arms, legs, eyes, hands, privates, etc. Just to give Iraq to Iran.
Am I happy with this answer? No. Do I wish that something will be done? Yes, of course; but this isn't Bush's fault, it's the fault of the islamic sphincters' who shot these kids. With or without our intervention in Iraq, this has been going on in ANY islamic country you would care to name for as long as there has been Islam.
That having been said, let's put the shoe on the other foot so to speak. If Kerry wins in November, what will he do in the above questions? I believe the same answer applies, subtracting the harsh words.
He'll probably do the same thing Bush would do, only America won't have all of the burden.
Why is it that your aim in all your posts is to somehow find a way to bash Bush and his administration, instead of dealing with the subject at hand (Islamofacists and their intent to put all us infidels to the same fate as these poor kids)?
Reply time to the snide, chickensh*t comments about the evil lib'ruls so prevalent at this site.
This crap has been going on in the Sudan for years, along with slavery, rape, torture, and has been reported here in JW, but I don't recall you condemning acts like this in that country (correct me if I'm wrong).
You are DEAD WRONG. If you don't believe that I criticize the jihadi leaders of Sudan, Pakistan, "palestine", Indonesia, etc. and the United Nothing which does pretty much nothing but criticize Israel, go visit the liberal, anti-fascist website http://www.dneiwert.blogspot.com/ and click on the “comments” under (what today is) the most recent post called “What? Another break?” and just see the good ass-kicking I gave that whiney Islamic apologist. My name there is “keith in tampa.”
Is it because we haven't intervened there? That there's no "hook" to catch and claw at Bush with in the Sudan?
Candidate Bush said that we should not be the world’s police, that we are not supposed to “build nations.” That’s why I know that Bush is full of Dole, but no one here will admit it because the people that (wisely) hate the jihadis also (foolishly) hate the lib’ruls. That’s why there is a wholesale attempt to link liberalism with the jihadi movement by “certain people.” Even though Sami Al-Aryan campaigned for Bush (you can easily find a picture of them (gasp!) arm in arm! (Did you hear that Gary?) and James Baker works for the Saudis and Henry Kissinger works for the Saudis and Bush Sr. works for the Carlyle Group (a.k.a. The Saudis.)
I reserve most of my anger over Sudan for the liberal fringe that thinks that Israel is the most atrocious, heavy-handed bunch of fascists on the planet today because they refuse to lay down and play dead for the “palestinians.”
Further, where's your outrage at the MF's who puller the trigger? How about outrage at the lack of help being offered to these people by the UN or any of the European nations? No outrage at the incredible corruption in the UN with the Oil For Food program ($5Billion absconded with!). Instead, you always find a slant to attack Bush, not the people truly at fault, in any and all of your posts here.
If I didn’t have outrage at the jihadis themselves, I wouldn’t frequent this site. I hate Jihadis, I hate Allah, and I hate that pervert Mohamed. Is that clear enough for you to understand? Again, I am only replying to the never ending barrage of attacks against Clinton, Carter, and Kerry. Like there were no terror attacks under Reagan. (Think Beirut, 1983.)
I'm not in favor of everything that Bush has done in his presidency, but I reserve comments on that for a different forum. Knock the crap off and stick to the issue at hand, uniting in an anti-jihad movement that might accomplish something.
So other posters can go on and on about the evil Kerry, how Carter let Iran walk all over him, and how Clinton is responsible for 9-11, but I can’t say anything about the Walking Nap (Reagan, 241 Marines killed in Lebanon), the Saudi’s Lapdog (Bush Sr., 6,000 Desert Storm vets dead of “mystery disease”), and the Son of the Saudi’s Lapdog (The Boy King, 880 dead in soon-to-be Sharia Land and counting)?
Hey Colt, in the words of Dick Cheney, “G.F.Y.”
If you want to debate, let’s debate. But spare me your petulant little lecture. I have been coming here for months, begging all the con-reps here to help me educate my fellow liberals on the jihad movement, and all I get is “deport them to France, har-har-har” and “you liberals hate America, hate the Constitution, want to make all our kids gay, blah blah blah.” And I have told them about the "other forums" where all the talk is of the Evil Slick Willie who "wagged the dog" by attacking Osama and was later accused of "doing nothing" because he... didn't get Osama. Sites like www.freerepublic.com.
I have accomplished something by educating myself on the world-wide threat of jihad. Just recently I found a genocide statistics website, where I learned that in ALL of the Arab-Israeli wars combined, not even 50,000 people have been killed on all sides. And since 1990, including both so-called “intifadas” there hasn’t even been 10,000 deaths on both sides.
By contrast, in the Sudan, 2 million have been killed since 1990, including at least 100,000 this year. While the United Nothing blathers on and on about a goddam fence in Israel.
Using this (and more) data, I protested a speaking engagement with Israel Basher Extraordinaire, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. I hope to present a full report to Robert Spencer later but basically I had several signs calling Amy to task for her naked, shameless Israel fetish. I also handed out 100 flyers I made myself with mass murder/war statistics since WW Two, to help put Amy’s Israel bias in prospective.
One sign said:
Ariel Sharon: 5,000 deaths
Suharto: 300,000
General Khan: 1,500,000
Saddam: 1,200,000
Amy, please explain your bias.
The other sign said:
Amy, will you send the ISM to Sudan?
Amy, are you going to help Nader elect Bush again?
Amy, does the money stink?
SO, I am doing something to fight the jihad. I am trying to enlighten my fellow liberals. Can you help me?
PS:
Am I happy with this answer? No. Do I wish that something will be done? Yes, of course; but this isn't Bush's fault, it's the fault of the islamic sphincters' who shot these kids. With or without our intervention in Iraq, this has been going on in ANY islamic country you would care to name for as long as there has been Islam.
Yes, but it is Bush's fault that 900 GIs have been killed and thousands are missing body parts.
I defended President Bush and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with him when he sent the troops to Afghanistan to waste the Taliban. I was all for it. Just like when the libs attacked Clinton for bringing Milosevic to justice (where were all of those "patriotic" right wingers then? Demanding that he stop "wagging the dog" of course.)
I wouldn't have cared if he nuked an Afghan city, then said "Okay, give us Bin Laden, or we nuke another city." (But the liberal in me hopes that we would have given them advance warning to clear out the people first.) This way, Bin Laden could be brought to justice. The perfect sentence would have been to crucify him in Times Square, in a pig sty.
But nooooooooo. Bush said we have proof that BIn Laden did it. The Taliban said "show us the proof and we'll give you Bin Laden." Bush said, "no, just give him up or we'll invade." We invaded. Bin Laden got away at Tora Bora mountain, and then we sent the bulk of our military to Iraq, where every man, bullet, bomb, fighter plane, etc. COULD be serving in Afghanistan, where WE LOST BIN LADEN.
Now Ridge, Asscroft, etc. say Bin Laden is about to strike us again, before the election.... and the result will be "Vote for Bush! Bin Laden wants you to vote for Kerry!"
I don't know how to insert a link, but here is the first paragraph of a great article I found at compuserve.com
PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island (AP) -- The Palestine Liberation Organization and its governmental entity must each pay more than $116 million to the estate of a Jewish couple slain near the West Bank eight years ago, a federal judge ruled.
Hopefully the charges will "stick."
I'd like to see the same thing happen to the Saudis for 9-11; hopefully Kissinger and James Baker will lose those cases.
I'd REALLY like to see India sue Saudi Arabia for the TRILLIONS of dollars worth of damage they did when they invaded India.
Keith,
Thanks for the replies. A few thoughts in return.
We're partially in agreement with the Iraq war - I'm not convinced it was a good idea, but the issue with nuclear weapons and other WMD's was, based on info at the time, valid. I'm amazed at people's short memory on this - every major nation was convinced that Hussein had them. The UN passed resolution after resolution on the subject of disarmament. In hindsight it appears the greatest intelligence fake in the world was pulled off, and the guy who did it is soon to be on trial. What a great reward for his bluffing efforts. Appearances might be deceiving; only time will tell if the WMD's went elswhere.
Okay, I'm DEAD WRONG about you not condemning the Islamofacists. Great. But I don't see much of that in your posts here; what I see always has a conservative-baiting slant to it, which is what I have objected to. This thread is a prime example - two kids brutally murdered, and the main thrust of your post is "this is all Bush's fault!". Any condemnation for the murderers, Islam, sharia, etc. is blunted by the obvious jab at Bush. After looking at your "What, Another Break?" comments, I find it almost unbelievable that you don't provide posts like that on this site. I stand corrected, and apologize for the previously held opinion.
You make a valid point on the "kill 'em all, deport 'em all" posts - they don't do much to educate, and I tend to skip them myself. I can understand where some of these people are coming from, though. As far as helping you educate, every chance I get I talk to people I know about the dangers of Islam and jihad.
Finally, I don't see much justification for your comment about unending attacks on liberals. After scanning through all the current posts, on all available threads (not in the archives), the only stuff I see attacking the liberals is in response to your attacks on conservatives. Again, you always slant what you have to say as an attack (and a snide one at that). If the liberal bashing has occurred in the past, it certainly doesn't appear to be the major thrust of comments now. Not saying it didn't / doesn't happen, but it doesn't seem to be a major part of the posts. Up until your defense here, All I've seen is the other side of the coin from what you state: you start the whole ball of wax by attacking first. That's crap in my book. And I'm not being petulant about this; as stated before, I don't see the unending attacks you claim to be reacting to, which is why I posted my "little lecture" in the first place. You seem to me to be the instigator of these partisan lib/con dust-ups.
Talking to other people who might be reading this: you should check out the comments Keith posted on the other website, using the link he provided. I don't agree with all he said, but on slamming the islamic apologist he's got a lot of good things to say.
Dear Walker Colt:
Thank you for following up and verifying for the rest of the forum that I do indeed fight the jihadi apologists at liberal sites.
You are right; some of the anti-lib'rul, rhetoric has died down. It seems like only yesterday every single comment, no matter what the topic, would have a bunch of slanderous ca-ca deriding Carter, Clinton, Kerry, Hilary, algore, Al Sharpton, France, Mike Moore, etc. I don't spend as much time at this site as I once did.
It seems to me that some of the crap has gone away since Robert Spencer changed the comments requirements.... but time will tell.
I'm telling you, there were some commenters that would grab five-ten FULL ARTICLES from newsmax.com and post them, in entirety here, oft times the same 5-10 posts would appear at multiple comments. And the articles would even say "newsmax.com".
You may not feel this way, but there are lots of people who think that lib'ruls are "just as bad" as the jihadis, that lib'ruls enable the jihadis, etc. The line of "reasoning" is akin to this:
P1: Me and Bush hate terrorists.
P2: Lib'ruls hate me and Bush.
C: Therefore, the lib'ruls LOVE the terrorists!
Walker, I don't need to educate people here about the world-wide jihad. I need to educate them on the fact that the liberals aren't their enemy, radical Islam is their enemy.
At the liberal sites I DO NEED to educate them that radical Islam is OUR enemy.
Again, thank you very much for your rational, calm posts. Now, if you want to lose an arguement about politics.... let me know. ~(:^D
By the way Walker... check again at http://www.dneiwert.blogspot.com/
since I have updated my argument with someone that can't defend their opinions and has resorted to personal attacks.
Michael Moore IS a terrorist. 'nuff said.
*checks Keith's site* Pierce is dead? Finally! I guess I need to pay more attention to the happenings in the militias here.
But that doesn't make Michael Moore anything less of a lying, distorting, moneygrubbing, terrorist-supporting fat thug.
Say Keith! the militias hate Jews, right?
Michael Moore sides with the Palestinians. What does That tell you about him and the militias?
Yeah, the militias hate Jews. They are so damn busy hating Jews and black people that they can't even get down to Hamtramck Michigan and "see to" that loud speaker call to prayer.
Like the so-called soccer hooligans in England... the press for years has said that there are thousands and thousands of skin-head, neo-nazi, racists that riot at soccer games. And this is where the Muslims laugh at us over 9-11, call terrorists "heroes" and predict that England will fall under Sharia?
And your point is, Gary?
You actually spelled Jews correctly. And here I thought it was the dumbing-down of the public school you went to, by the very people and organizations you uphold...
My point? Michael Moore sides with the terrorists. Is that not plain enough, or do I need to trot out his own words and images?