This Christian Science Monitor report about the standoff in Najaf blandly reports that children are inside the Shrine of Ali as human shields. Or at least one child. (Thanks to "Allah" for the link.)
Inside the shrine itself, there were no weapons to be seen, but there were hundreds of Mahdi Army supporters, some of them familiar faces from a demonstration one week ago in Baghdad. They were voluntary human shields, the youngest perhaps 8 years old, the oldest 70.
I still say bomb the wanker!!!
If children die , fat-boys the one responsible for being a such a chicken-shit, rat puke who uses children as protection.
This is the "man" who claimed he would "Fight until his last drop of blood has been spilled", yet here he is cowering in the shadows of hundreds of idiots ,foolish enough to give their pathetic lives up for him, and using children to save his own over-sized, flabby ass.
Of course the media mongs at Al Jazeera will blame the US troops for the childs death, not one of them having the observance nor intelligence to see that a grown man should not be putting a childs life at risk in the first place.
Look these rat droppings didn't care about all the christian churches, hindu or buddhist temples allover tyhe world that are being destroyed and burnt down by muslims, so why should any of us give the minutest fragment of shit that these murderers, terrorists nand peace-wreckers are in a holy shrine.
If they cared that much they wouldn't have used it as a fort, and should expect nothing less.
It would wipe the smug grins off their faces if we dropped a cluster bomb right in the centre of them (they make me seeth with rage seeing the pathetic bastards grinning , chanting and laughing at us, because even though they are our enemy who have no concept of fair fighting ,compassion, respect for other cultures , they know that our PC society will force our forces to take their "religion" into consideration and stop us from blasting them to molecules, like we so easily could and most definitely SHOULD).
Naseem,
Who cares?If I was in control of the troops , it would become an even bigger cemetry with the fatboy and his servile cruds' corpses joining those already buried.
When will you get it into your thick skull that we don't give a rats testicle whats "holy" anymore , to me if anything is holy to a muslim thats even more reason to destroy it (I often spray bbscenities on mosks, as well as spit, piss and puke on them and smash their windows).
You and your stinking religion mean less than nothing to me and anyone else with any kind of sense or morals
I posted this to you on another thread but I just wanted to make sure you read it.
Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
Earlier this month, our blog, Sixth Column, (http://www.sixthcolumn.blogspot.com), brought the group, Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism, to our readers' attention and pointed them to their website for their own evaluation of the group. We have been cautious about endorsing them because of notorious Islamic dissimulation. This morning we received this mailing, and we want to pass it on. This is a right message.
It is our ardent hope that Free Muslim Coaltion Against Terrorism proves to be a Sixth Column organization, as we use the term, supporting the correct and good principles of life and America as opposed to the sordidness of almost all of the other Muslim groups, such as CAIR.
We wish we could take Free Muslim Coaliton Against Terrorism at face value because all of us need good Muslim, Arab, etc., principled, proud support of life values joining us in this fight. If they keep this up long enough, we will be proud to endorse them. Until then, we will appreciate any and all good emanating from them--and spread it around.
Here Is their Message:
From : Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism
Reply-To : info@freemuslims.org
Sent : Thursday, August 19, 2004 8:10 PM
The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism urges Arab and Muslim leaders to provide moral support to the new Iraqi government in its bid to defeat Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army.
It has been more than a year since the invasion of Iraq. Some were for the war and some were against the war. However, continuing to argue about whether the war was justified is now moot and not constructive. No matter what is one’s view about the invasion of Iraq, the Arab and Muslim world must now agree that a stable, prosperous Iraq is in everyone’s best interest.
The journey to stabilizing Iraq has been a difficult one and it is being made more difficult by terrorist infiltrations, Iranian sabatoge and ruthless private militias who have no purpose other than to destabilize Iraq.
The battle with Muqtada al-Sadr has continued for too long. There must come a time when negations must stop and decisive action taken. Al-Sadr has been given numerous opportunities to lay down his arms and join the government if he wants to influence government policy. In response, he has continued to play cat and mouse and continues to divide Iraq.
Some fear that waging a full assault against al-Sadr and his forces may enrage the Shia population. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism believes this is flawed reasoning. Those who support al-Sadr will be just as enraged with the Iraqi government and the Coalition forces if they continue to wage a low intensity battle that accomplishes no more than increase al-Sadr’s popularity and recruits.
The Iraqi government and the Coalition forces must eliminate al-Sadr in a quick, decisive and overwhelming battle. The United States must also reaffirm to the Iraqi people that it has no intention of continuing to occupy Iraq. The United States must make it clear to the people of Iraq that it will leave Iraq one day after Iraq becomes stable. This approach will provide the Iraqi government with a credible argument against the militants who claim that they are fighting for the liberation of Iraq. With this approach, the Iraqi government may win the hearts and mind of the Iraqi people by arguing that if the militants want the U.S. to leave Iraq then the militants must put down their arms and contribute to the building of a prosperous and stable nation.
Having said this, no one should be naïve into believing that al-Sadr is fighting to end the occupation of Iraq. The battle with al-Sadr is about the future of Iraq. Iraq is now divided between those who want to build a democratic, secular nation and those, like al-Sadr, who want to build an Iran type theocracy. We must never allow Iraq to become another Iran.
For more information visit our website at: www.freemuslims.org
---------------
Also, see features on our website, 6th Column Against Jihad,(http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com).
---------------
G.M.
Good story and lets hope they have huge numers who follow that thinking?
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2747451
Aug. 19, 2004, 10:10PM
Woman fends off attack by brandishing a knife
Suspect runs after she screams and fights back
A Harris County woman thwarted a man's attempt to abduct her Thursday when she tried to stab him, authorities said.
Kim Orrin Garrett was later arrested and charged with attempted kidnapping. The 43-year-old Spring man was caught after he jumped a fence and tried to run from deputies, according to a Harris County Constable's report.
The woman had taken her husband to a bus stop and was returning to her apartment in the 16300 block of Lyons School Road after 6 a.m. when she noticed her porch light was out, deputies said. She saw a man crouched behind her air conditioning unit just before he jumped out and grabbed her, deputies said.
The woman began fighting and screaming, which drew the attention of an off-duty deputy constable at the apartments and prompted neighbors to call 911. When the woman grabbed a small knife and tried to stab the man attacking her, he ran away. Garrett was arrested later in the 16200 block of Stuebner Airline Road, deputies said.
This is the American Woman a Fighter!!!
We all need to be ARMED with GUNS?
Rikki here is some hope from a canadian they are not all wimps ?
Have to go spend some money looking for some more pretty shoes and short skirts?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/internationalreport.htm
International Report
Holy City? Give me a break!
by Alan Caruba
What if I were to invite you to visit the "holy city" of San Diego, named after a saint? So was St. Augustine, Florida. Providence, Rhode Island references God’s grace. There is hardly a major city where one cannot find an impressive cathedral or other religious structure. From one end of America to another, you can find "holy cities", but while they honor religious figures or ideals, they do not claim to be "sacred" ground.
So what makes Iraq’s Najaf a "holy city" other than the fact that there is a big mosque there? What, for that matter, makes every grain of sand in Saudi Arabia "sacred"? Or makes Mecca and Medina more sacred than cities that preceded both by well over two thousand years, Jerusalem and Vatican City in the midst of Rome? Other than pure arrogance, what gives Islam the right to claim Jerusalem as an Islamic holy city when Muhammad never physically stepped foot there, nor anywhere else outside of Arabia?
Returning to Najaf, the home base of Muqtada al-Sadr, the renegade Shi’ite mullah, just how holy is a mosque when it serves as a place to store weapons and plan military operations against an interim government? So I suggest that the time to give him five minutes to get out of town or watch his mosque turned into a parking lot has arrived.
This is likely to make a lot of Arabs angry at the Big Bad United States of America, but frankly these people don’t need any excuse to dislike us. I get a lot of email from people in the Middle East who don’t like what I have to say about Islam. One universal theme runs through virtually all these communications and it is that the United States and Israel are responsible for the "oppression" in their nations, not the monarchs and despots that run those nations.
It is the U.S., they contend, that supports these dictators and, therefore, is to be blamed for their actions. As for Israel, it is responsible for everything that is wrong with their lives. By contrast, militant and even peaceful Muslims are never to blame for anything.
In the past, I have tried to reply reasonably that the United States has not only suffered attacks on its homeland, but also a long succession of attacks going back to the seizing of its diplomats in Iran in 1979, the bombing of Marines in Lebanon, the attack of the USS Cole, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. All by Muslims. It was Muslims who blew up trains in Spain, a nightclub in Bali, synagogues in Turkey and Argentina, foreign compounds in Riyadh, and let’s not forget those US embassies in two African nations.
For good measure, I tried to point out that our military has gone in harm’s way to defend and protect Muslims in Kuwait, in Somalia, in Bosnia, and against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now it is engaged in the liberation of 25 million Muslims in Iraq, setting them on the path of democracy and freedom.
None of this, I assure you, has the least affect on the thinking of my correspondents, nor, I suspect, on any of the other millions of totally ungrateful slaves of the despotic governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Libya, the Sudan, and other nations where Islam plays a significant role in governance or whose militants are engaged in insurrections to become the government. In Islam, there is no separation of church and state.
Islam so suffuses the lives of Muslims throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, they are utterly blind and indifferent to the fact that it has consigned them to backwardness, poverty, and the mercy of whoever is in charge. There is little hope for the individual Middle Eastern Muslim, even if he is an educated member of the middle class. That is why most of the 9-11 hijackers came from this segment of Saudi Arabian society. That is why Osama bin Laden, who came from a Saudi family of great wealth, uses Islam to advance his self-glorification and evil agenda. And right now, the Saudis have launched a public relations campaign to tell us what good friends of ours they are. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
So here come the Americans with our military power and these morons sit in front of their television sets listening to and watching al Jezeera tell them over and over again that their sacred lands or holy cities are being destroyed by us simply because we want their oil. Yes, we want their oil. We are paying $44 a barrel for it right now! Has the money gained from its purchase in the past done anything to benefit the individual Muslim? Has it built a decent infrastructure or educational system in any of these places?
I suggest we Americans get over the notion that we are "creating" Islamic enemies. Just as the nation of Israel was born surrounded with Islamic enemies and has battled them for over a half century, the only thing the United States can do is kill our enemies and liberate the rest who must be dragged into the 21st century and connected to the rest of the world before they destroy us in the name of Allah.
Seams that Sader is missing?
Four hunderd mulsum terrorist in Iraq have been Arested?
Part of the American Tribe
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and All who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom and Courage to stay the course to Victory Amen
Concerning the dispatch above:
Forgive me for being cynical, but I smell a rat here. This may be nothing more than a ploy for non-Shia muslims to win sympathy and get rid of their ancient rivals with one stroke, making sure that Sunni-Wahabbist Islam reigns trimphant in the world.
I have a question, and I hope someone can answer it for me:
Is the concept of "sanctuary" an Islamic concept, or did it originate as a Christian notion?
If it was not a part of Islam, why are we pussy-footing around these mosques? We should take a bunch of photos for archival and historical purposes, and maybe make a few really good models for the museums, and then flatten the damned things that are serving as sanctuary only for people who are shooting at us. We can also pick up a few pieces afterwards for the museums.
Even if the concept of "sanctuary" is an Islamic principle, given that they have been--how shall I say it--DISRESPECTFUL of people and property in the places of worship of Christians and others, why do we bother being so respectful of theirs, especially when they are being used as fortresses?
Furthermore, at least in the United States, if a criminal takes refuge in a church, the police still go in after him, doing, of course, as little damage as possible.
The whole notion of "sanctuary" cannot logically apply to those who are initiating the use of deadly force against others.
It served a purpose in medieval times, before anything resembling human rights had been conceived of, but it is not only unnecessary now, it is counterproductive.
Cubed~ As my wife says: Because Western morals must continue to be better than islamic morals in all things.
Mind you, there is Nothing PC about that statement. I agree that if they push too far, western morals are going out the window. Temporarily, whereas islam never rose to that level to begin with, and never will.
The notion of a temple being a sanctuary is at least as old as 5th century BC Greece. Not all temples however, were recognized as places that offered unlimited sanctuary.
Perhaps the best known example of the use of a temple as a sanctuary is the case of the Spartan general Pausanias. In 479 BC he was accused of conspiring with the Persians and was recalled to Sparta. He took refuge in a temple when he failed to defend himself against his detractors. He refused to come out so the authorities boarded up the building and Pausanias starved to death inside.
The Geneva Conventions offer some protection to religious buildings but those protections are void when such sites are used for military purposes. Since there is actual video footage of Al-Sadr thugs firing mortars from the courtyard of the Ali shrine, if the US decided to reduce the place to a pile of dust, it could do so with impunity granted by international law of war. Recall the Allied bombing of the Benedictine monastery at Monte Cassino as a modern precedent.
I do not buy the notion that destroying sites such as the shrine of Ali would cause any more incitement to violence than has already been generated. I also do not believe that the use of overwhelming force in the region would breed any more jihadis than have already been bred, or at least in numbers that would make a meaningful difference. Even the full impact of the United States Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy in the region, would pale in comparison to the decades long da'wah of the Wahhabi fanatics. The West needs to understand that this bridge was crossed long ago.
If the concern is that the destruction of Shi'a sites in Iraq would inflame the Iranian horde, let them be reminded that there are five other Imam shrines in Iraq that can be wiped off the planet in a sequence that the jihadis themselves can choose if they too are used for military purposes. [There is only one Imam shrine in Iran and the only other two are in Medina, Saudi Arabia.] The mechanics of the task are nothing more than a video game to the Air Force personnel pushing the buttons in response to the PC keystrokes at CENTCOM.
The Islamic world has never responded to attempts to reason with it in post-Roman diplomatic terms. The bloody borders of Islam over its 14 century history are ample testimony to that fact. The only diplomacy they understand is extreme violence and even when they are repeatedly slaughtered and humiliated by non-muslim armies, they persist in clinging to their demented ideological fantasy of world domination.
Hulego Khan--
Many thanks for your informative history of "sanctuary." It would appear, then, that
1) on the basis of historical precedent, we are justified in using whatever force is necessary to put a halt to the actions of these al Sadr mercenaries, and
2) I should imagine that most of us who post to this site agree that overwhelming action taken in the region would not generate any more hatred than already exists. There might be greater expression of it, but it's already there.
The boarding up of the temple in which Pausanias was left to starve is very reminiscent of the Celtic method whereby a criminal took refuge in his home (the ancestral concept of "a man's home is is castle"), and because the authorities could not enter it, they would pile wood up around it and set fire to it. The fellow's fate was similar to that of Pausanias'.
Gary,
Please tell your wife that I agree 100% that Western morals must be better than Islamic morals in all things.
A moral code is a set of values that is chosen to guide our thoughts and behavior. In the West, for the most part, we choose "life" as appropriate to the nature of a human being as our "standard of the good," the fundamental value by which we judge everything else. Those thoughts and behaviors that tend to support life are designated "good," while those thoughts and behaviors that tend to threaten life are designated "not good."
Islam's moral code did not choose human life as it's standard of the good. In fact, it chose death. First, Islam makes life on this earth a living hell by forbidding humans to exist in a manner appropriate to human nature, then it tells them they can go to "Paradise," a place that can only be reached by dying, as their escape from the hell they have created on this earth in the first place.
You can find all sorts of references to this line of thinking, but one of the most current, best known, and blatent is the Ayatollah Khomeini. Read "Holy Terror" and "In the Name of Allah" by Amir Taheri. It is chock full of direct and authoritative quotes on the subject of life on this earth. (Unfortunately, Taheri seems to be an eternal optimist, hoping against hope that Islam can change--this, despite all his own experience. But this does not detract from the factual material in his books.)
No wonder they volunteer to be martyrs!
Back to Western morality, and skipping now the middle of the argument about why "life" is the only VALID "standard of the good" for moral codes: the concept of SELF DEFENSE is included in a proper moral code. A pithy description of "rights" includes the statement: "Your rights stop at my skin." Rights, since they are part of our physical beings, cannot be granted or taken away, they can only be violated by the initiation of the use of physical force or by its intellectual equivalent, fraud or deceit.
Self defense is morally appropriate when one's rights are violated. That would include when you are being shot at.
Sometimes self defense is short lived--you deck the guy and call the cops. Sometimes it's longer lived--you call out the armed forces and fight like crazy for four or more years.
You bet--Western morality IS better than that of the death-worshipping, anti-human, anti-reason, anti-mind, anti-life, anti-just about anything you can think os Islamic code. And if we are getting shot at under the circumstances that exist now in Najaf, and if the mosque has to be damaged or destroyed in the process, then it is morally justified by Western standards.