Taliban Rape Tapes: A "Muslim Abu Ghraib"

More on Abbas:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g5VcYLI0edRtyXKXjV8-zvJgJVTg

Can calls for stoning be far behind?

These women and girls were raped by this "doctor" while being lured by the promise of medical attention, and then the Taliban leader murders not only the perpetrator *but the poor rape victims* in order to hush things up—and this is compared to Abu Graib, where some idiots made Jihad terrorist prisoners put lady's panties on their heads?

Even by the usual standards of moral equivalence, this is rather stunning.

And note, "rounding up the sons of poor Muslim families to fight for the Taliban and Al Qaeda"—pulling young boys away from their families and pressing them into use as cannon fodder—isn't even considered a scandal in this sick world, but is merely business as usual.

Use of the term "Muslim Abu Ghraib" is worrisome. It tacitly accepts the idea that terrible, unheard-of things went on at Abu Ghraib (and so they did, but that was not when the Americans were in charge, but when Saddam Hussein's men were) and that these things that went on, under American direction, are comparable to the things discussed, and shown, in the article above. There is no comparison. This is not a "Muslim Abu Ghraib" because the American "Abu Ghraib" has been ludicrously exaggerated beyond all recognition -- a phrase, no more, used to allude to things which, when you ask the alluder to specify, turn out to be not much, in the atrocities sweepstakes where that, apparently, is forever to be the American entry. Remember exactly what did, and did not happen, at Abu Ghraib. This wasn't the Lubyanka, or Gestapo headquarters in Paris, and it wasn't anything remotely resembling what real torture chambers are like. Nothing that is not true should ever be conceded.

Said best by General Larry Platt, on this year's American Idol auditions:

Pants on the ground,
pants on the ground,
lookin' like a FOOL with your pants on the ground!

Ladies and gentlemen,

we proudly present the pious and coy Taliban. An egregious example of human virtue. Keep on going Taliban and lecture the rest of the world on morals. Our debauched and degenerated Western society desperately needs you.

It's always amazed me that what are the gravest of mortal sins within Christianity are veritable sacraments to Muhammadans.

From a companion article on the impending American offensive in Helmund Province...

"The assault, dubbed Operation Mushtarak ("Together" in Dari)..."

Except that Dari is not the language of Helmund or anywhere else in southern Afghanistan. Pashto is. Dari is spoken by the hated northerners.

So, while US forces preparing for the assault are at this moment forbidden to respond to Taliban mortar attacks from the nearby town so as to avoid civilian casualties in the "battle for hearts and minds"...they use an alien dialect to symbolize friendship and comity with the targeted population.

Well done!

Sometimes, it seems to me that their very outrageous lack of what Westerners view as "morality" in the pursuit of tribal and family issues protects these examples of cultural pondscum.

No-one with a "reasonable" mind can easily accept and then DEAL with this stuff on a real-world level.

So they don't do either.

Anyone else notice the truly disturbing "tone" that the creepy singers and speakers use in these Islamic videos? Even knowing nothing of what they are saying, the tone alone tells me that it is something that my brain does not want to even hear or process. The sort of monotone droning, the constant warning alert in the spoken portions, the disturbingly depressing tone of the sung portions. Does anyone else notice this? I also notice it in the evil droning chants that they make over the loudspeakers for their absurd public calls to prayer.

If anyone has ever heard an Christian congregation singing in a language that you don't understand you can still hear the joy and it is something that uplifts the heart.

It is amazing that so many people are subjugated by Islam, that they are not able to rise up and just kill all the mullahs and the imams and free themselves. Living under Islam truly must be hell on earth.

Here we have Muslim A giving some highly-inflammatory dirt about Muslim B (with whom Muslim A has fallen out) to...an Infidel citizen of a powerful nation.

He knows that seeing that dirt will make the infidel angry with Muslim B; thus the Infidel's nation, which has power, will side with Muslim A and enable Muslim A to overcome Muslim B.

but the $1000 question is this: were Muslim A *not* currently vying for power with Muslim B, and were the non-Muslims not possessed of desireable weaponry which could be useful to Muslim A, *would* Muslim A have cared two straws about what was happening to the girls?? Would any Muslim have let this material leak out to the non-Muslim world?

For all we know, Muslim A or the group to which he belongs may be doing stuff just as bad, and thinking nothing of it.

Just as Shiites helped lure the USA into getting rid of Saddam Hussein for them...all the while complaining piteously of the evils inflicted on them by the Sunnis; but who wants to bet that now Shiites are on top, they will not dish out to the Sunnis exactly the same treatment, or worse, than the Sunnis dished out to *them*?

And here is another thing that every non-Muslim must bear in mind, if they choose to watch the tapes:

Supposing the girls 'starring' in these rape films had been...not Muslim girls, but Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus or Buddhists.

Would any Muslim have expressed outrage?

Would any mullah have categorically condemned what was being done?

Coptic Christian, Pakistani Christian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi Hindu girls are regularly seized and raped by Muslim men, and the Muslim authorities, political and religious, *do nothing whatever*.

I could not watch this.

Will the American media who dragged on endlessly about Abu Ghraib, where the sophomoric antics were well below fraternity hazing, even notice?

I'm a little bit confused, this Jalaluddin Haqqani character seems a awful lot like his vile monster prophet. Shouldn't he be revered by his fellow mujahedeen? Then it hit me, they're Muslim girls, and not captives of war, or infidels. You're right Dumbledoresarmy. It's who he's raping, not the actual raping that bothers his enemies. But, at least this will cause friction in the ranks of our enemies and they can go back to killing each other for a while.

I'm not watching that video- nah ah. I'll let the experts watch that instead.

But this does make me sad... it makes me pity the Muzzies more than hate them- I mean, can they be blamed for having grown up in a cult? Can their parents?

It's like a never-ending series of brainwashings....

Utterly vile and depraved.

dumbledoresarmy too true.

As disturbing as that clip is I cannot help but think of the multitudes of Christians that have to endure that torture by IslamoNazis.

Filthy perverted backward cult.

Was this just these weirdos doing this for pedophile/sexual reasons or were they using these tapes or these actions in some sort of way for their Jihad/terror purposes?

Tim sez: "... it makes me pity the Muzzies more than hate them- I mean, can they be blamed for having grown up in a cult? Can their parents?"

Interesting point. Yesterday we met a 3-year-old girl provoked to mumble the Koran; and there are many children much more eloquent than her that you can see on YT. At what age is it appropriate to consider soldiers of Islam responsible for their behavior? Is the moment of personal responsibility a Western concept, like logic, like physics, like Valentine's Day? It is not easy to sympathize with SOAs while trying to defeat them.

Let's see if I can get this straight -

1. Sex with animals - Halal, as long as you kill the animal afterwards (Ayatollah Komeini).
2. Sex with infant girls - Halal, as long as you do not penetrate the vagina; if you damage the infant, you are responsible for her care for the rest of her life (merciful is Allah!) (Ayatollah Komeini).
3. Sex with children - Halal, rubbing your member against the thigh is recommended. (aHadith)
4. Pedophilia - Halal, the prophet (the perfect man) married Ayesha at 6 and raped her at 9. (Qur'an)
5. Rape - normal sex, recommended for kuffar sex slaves, but since muslimahs need to produce 4 male witnesses, impossible to prove in the "House of Peace". (Qur'an)Note to muslim "men" - don't get caught like the guys in the video.
6. Rape and violence - great sex in any Shariah ruled country. Polls in Afghanistan and Pakistan reveal that 90% of the women in those countries have been beaten by men. Since the prophet beat Ayesha and "recited" an aya that makes it halal to beat your wive(s), (Qur'an) we can assume that a large majority of muslimahs world wide are the victims of physical abuse.
7. Rape, violence and murder - uber Islamic sex. What world audiences have not seen is the sexually mutilated bodies left after Beslan and Mombai. School children in Beslan were raped, sexually tortured and murdered at the same time the Muslim terrorists were "negotiating" with the Russians.

Back to 2. Sex with infants is halal.

No-one has mentioned the Islamic dodge of 'Muta' or temporary marriage.
Could that not have been used to 'legitimise' this depravity?

As for the comparison with Abu Ghraib, there is really none, as Hugh says. Nevertheless it could turn out to have a similar kind of effect on the Taliban reputation and to be a similarly effective propaganda weapon.

May the Spencers'; Wilders; etc of this world CONTINUE to inform the rest of mankind of what the religion of peace really is.

EVIL -
{maybe living among these fine folks for a lifetime is the Human price we must pay for our sins from a previous existence?}

Exposes of unthinkable, horrific atrocities committed by muslims don't seem to bother anyone, least of all Western islamic apologists and "experts", who always have excuses and scapegoats on which to blame barbaric muslim actions. I was sure that the orgy of rape, slaughter, unspeakable cruelty and torture of innocent children at Beslan would force the world to see and admit that muslims are a threat wherever they exist and that islam contains an irreconciliable component of pure evil that turns muslims into maniacal savages.

There was the usual requisite outrage tempered with politically correct platitudes to exculpate the "majority" of muslims, but Beslan is proof that these animals will not be held culpable for their demonic behavior until the civilized people of the world wake up and see them for what they are. There are no excuses for what these beasts do; they are despicable filth.

This is disgusting and vile to a degree that is beyond description.

The fact is that, while this behavior is not allowed by Islam any more than it is allowed by Judaism, Chrsitianity, or Buddhism, it does show the level to which religion can be used as a cover for the worst of hypocrites and sociopaths in a sick society dominated by superstition, ignorance, and corruption.

Oh. My bad. An anonymous poster makes a statement so it MUST be true.

Sorry, but MEMRI has a clip of a Muslim cleric in Egypt condemning (in the strongest possible terms) the recent violence against the Copts. Go to MEMRI and see it for yourself.

Islamic thought and law do not condone rape.

I will not stoop to the level of the Islamists by painting all Muslims with the same brush.

Oh. My bad. An anonymous poster makes a statement so it MUST be true.

Sorry, but MEMRI has a clip of a Muslim cleric in Egypt condemning (in the strongest possible terms) the recent violence against the Copts. Go to MEMRI and see it for yourself.

Islamic thought and law do not condone rape.

I will not stoop to the level of the Islamists by painting all Muslims with the same brush.

In Egypt, a Muslim cleric condemned crimes committed against Copts:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2356.htm

Jim Foster is just another stupid Leftist apologist for evil - the sort we've seen too often on here. He doesn't want to see Islam as evil - only the people who criticise that religion are evil in his tiny mind.

"In summation, I am saying don't paint all Muslims with the brush of evil, depriving them of their individuality and humanity."

Agreed. You cannot paint all muslims with the same brush. But Islam itself is evil. For starters, sex with women captured in war is legal. Would you consider this as rape?

PS: Read the story of khyber war and safiyaa.

Following up on the Egyptian Muslim cleric Safwat Higazi cited by Jim, here is the relevant quote provided by MEMRI (more is available at the link provided by Jim; see "Transcript"):

"Some people say that they are fighting us, but this is absolutely false. Has any Christian ever brandished a weapon against you just because you are a Muslim? I would like to make an important point. We have been living in Egypt all our lives. During that time, thousands of Muslim men have raped Muslim women. What is the difference between the rape of a Muslim woman by a Muslim or by a Christian? What is the difference? There is no difference whatsoever – not in man-made law, nor in the law of our God."

"You should not be enraged because it is a Christian who raped a Muslim woman. Why aren’t you enraged when a Muslim man rapes a Muslim woman? Do Muslim men have the right to rape Muslim women, while Christians do not? In both cases, this is wrong and unacceptable."

Note: "In both cases." What are these cases? These cases are Muslims and Coptic Christians living under Islamic or semi-Islamic rule. I would gather that rape of a Christian woman might be regarded by Higazi as a violation of the dhimma. But what if the dhimma is violated, i.e., if the Christians violate Islamic rules? And what about women who are neither Muslim nor "of the Book", hence not regarded as recipients of Islamically-acceptable prophetic messages, and thus not protected in "God's law"? Higazi says nothing here about women generally, and he does not refer to the case of the non-Muslim female captive or slave. Hence, it is not clear that Higazi is actually breaking from traditional Islamic law and the Quran and Hadith with his statements.

In another article at MEMRI, Safwat Higazi said: "The Bahai faith is not a religion - just like Zoroastrianism and Buddhism are not religions. Religion is when Allah sends a prophet to this world, with a holy book, or a prophet who preaches the holy book of a previous prophet. Man-made beliefs of any kind - for which no prophet was sent - do not constitute religions. We cannot talk about a Buddhist religion, a Zoroastrian religion, a Babi religion, or a Baha'i religion. These are man-made schools of thought."

We are therefore left to question whether Higazi's statements include all women, or just those regarded as "of the Book" and living under and in conformity with Islamic rule. He says nothing about the classic policy regarding Muslim men having sex with their right-hand possessions (non-Muslim slaves and captives), which is not called "rape" in Islamic law but would be regarded as rape by everyone else.

In addition, other information regarding Higazi's support for Islamic extremism should raise questions about the credibility and validity of him as a source, even if only as a single anecdotal source.

From that quote, one can see that Foster's model Muslim, Higazi, only considers Muslims raping Muslim women, or Christians raping Muslim women. Higazi says nothing of Muslims raping Christian women. We all should know by now that Muslims formulate their opinions and fatwas with carefully placed omissions (as well as with ambiguous terms which they don't tell their Western audience Islam defines differently -- e.g., "innocent"). We can safely assume that Higazi is exempting Muslims raping Christian women from ethical consideration.