American taxpayers will be funding the next round, thanks to Joe Biden’s handlers.
“Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar threatens: This was just a dress rehearsal,” Arutz Sheva, May 26, 2021:
The leader of the Hamas terrorist organization in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, gave an address Wednesday afternoon for the first time since the end of Operation Guardian of the Walls and sent a series of threatening messages to Israel.
“If you want to stay in existence for a long time, you should stay away from al-Aqsa and Jerusalem,” Sinwar warned.
He claimed that the recent security escalation was only a preparation for bigger things to come. “The enemy and the world must know that this was just a general rehearsal – a small maneuver, which shows what could happen if Israel tries to harm al-Aqsa again.”
He said, “We have at least 10,000 martyrs in Israel who will each take a knife to stab, or a vehicle to run over, or a Molotov cocktail or a gasoline tank to burn forests.”…
He claimed that the IDF had no significant achievements in bombing his organization’s tunnels. “We have 500 km of tunnels and Israel has destroyed only 100 km of them. We will be able to restore everything in a few days.”
wpm says
This articles is about Moslems killing unarmed Jews in Allah,s name and if they themselves get killed (the Moslem Jihadist) will be martyrs in Allah according to the article.. In your rant you have said nothing against this so I guess you think it is ok. Hamas uses the Moslem children, Moslem women and other people not involved in their terrorist activity activity as human shields in the Gaza ,placing missile lunching sights near schools hospitals and apartment buildings.
wpm says
Hamas uses the Moslems living in the Gaza as cannon fodder ,so it proudly can show dead babies killed that were killed in the schools next to the missile lunching site they place there. The Israelis give warning to remove all people from these buildings before they blow them up. Hamas see the children in the Gaza as future martyrs to their cause .
PaulS says
Many were killed by the Hamas rockets falling short onto Gazans.
mortimer says
Ali incorrectly claims: “Islam absolutely forbids child sacrifice and killing one’s child”. Wrong.
Sharia law approves the honor-killing of children and grandchildren:
– K.18.65 permits the killing of one’s children and grandchildren and Sharia law codifies such HONOR KILLINGS:
(-from Sharia law manual Reliance of the Traveller o1.2) (RoT)
“The following are not subject to retaliation:
-3- (meaning: killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences); -4- a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring. RoT o1.2
and “There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.” -RoT, o4.17, p.593.
RoT o5.4 (O: There is no expiation for killing someone who has left Islam, a highwayman (def: o15). or a convicted married adulterer, even when someone besides the caliph kills him.)
Rebellious, non-practicing children are considered to be apostates from Islam. Mohammed required apostates to be killed.
(Ali, who is the ‘liar’ ?)
PRCS says
“Sharia law” would be the straight path law.
Let’s call it as Robert Spencer does: Islamic law.
Daniel says
Coward jihad watch so called champion of free speech keeps deleting my refutations… Robert Spencer and his ilk at jihad watch r hypocrites they don’t anyone to challenge thier narrative….that’s why Robert keeps running aways from debates and demands protection for debating….victimhood much?? silly old man
gravenimage says
Utter claptrap. “Daniel” here has been posting under the username “Daniel Ally”. Any comments posted under a new username go automatically to moderation. This is not deletion.
No surprise that this apologist for Muslim savagery is either terribly ignorant or is lying.
And Robert Spencer does not duck debates–generally it is Muslims who refuse to debate him. “Daniel” has made this false claim several times now.
Daniel says
The Shari’ah consists of some laws that remain the same regardless of changing circumstances and others that change with them. Most of the Shari’ah is up to individual Muslims to follow in their own lives. Some are for judges to implement in courts. Finally, the third set of laws is for the ruler or political authority to implement based on the best interests of society. The Shari’ah ruling on Muslims who decide to leave Islam belongs to this third group. Implemented in the past to protect the integrity of the Muslim community, today this important goal can best be reached by Muslim governments using their right to set punishments for apostasy aside.
One of the most common accusations leveled against Islam involves the freedom of religion. The problem, according to critics: Islam doesn’t have any.
This criticism might strike some as odd since it has been well established that both the religion of Islam and Islamic civilization have shown a level of religious tolerance that would make modern Americans blush. So what are these critics talking about? What they are referring to is not the issue of tolerating those who follow other religions. They are talking about the traditional Islamic punishment for Muslims who leave their own religion. Known as ridda or irtidād in Arabic, this is usually translated as apostasy in English (the generic act of renouncing or leaving one’s religion).
Like the issues of stoning and hand chopping, apostasy in Islam can only be understood if one is willing to look beyond provocative headlines and delve into the nature of how jurisprudence developed in the pre-modern world and in Islam in particular. As with these harsh punishments (see Yaqeen’s publication on the Hudud punishments here), modern confusion over apostasy in Islam has less to do with some basic flaw in Islam’s scriptures and more to do with a major development in human history, namely the greatly diminished role of religion in the law and governance of modern societies.
Though we’ll refer to ridda as apostasy for the sake of convenience, as in so many cases, the heart of the matter lies in the simple act of translation. In the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the early Muslim community, the Arabic noun ridda and the verb for engaging in it were understood not as meaning a personal choice of changing one’s religion but as the public act of political secession from the Muslim community.
Interestingly, this dimension of apostasy as betraying and opposing one’s community, missing in the normal usage of the English word ‘apostasy,’ is actually recovered in sociological studies of apostasy. Many studies looking at those who leave religious groups as well as communities defined by secular ideologies show that what distinguishes apostates from those who simply leave is that apostates become active opponents of their previous identity, more renegades than mere dissenters.[1] Along the same lines, the problem with ridda in Islam was not that a person was exercising their freedom of conscience and choosing to no longer follow the religion. The problem was when such a decision became a public act with political implications.
Daniel says
As far back as the first complex societies in Mesopotamia, human society saw religion as essential. It secured the relationship of individuals and communities to some reality above and beyond the superficial world around them. It also transcended the personal and communal. Whether the rule of Pharaoh in ancient Egypt, Confucius’s ‘order under heaven’ or the divine right of European monarchs, religion underpinned the political and social order within human communities and the states they established. Roman emperors required all inhabitants of their empire to offer token sacrifices for the emperor’s divine guidance not because they were oppressive or intolerant; people could worship whatever gods they wanted. But they had to help maintain the pax deorum (the peace of the gods), the intermingled divine and earthly order that brought peace and prosperity to all. The Old Testament law of the Children of Israel reflected this overlap of religious affiliation and affirmation of a tribal and even state identity; those Jews who forsook the God of Israel to take up the worship of other deities were condemned to stoning (Deuteronomy 13:8-9; 17:2-7).
The Muslims who built up Islamic civilization inherited and affirmed this ancient assumed role of religion. Muslim political theorists wrote that a widely-adhered-to religion and a stable state were the two most important pillars of worldly prosperity.[2] “Religion and earthly sovereignty were twins,” went a common refrain.[3]
In Islamic civilization, the order of the world under heaven was simple. Muslims believed that God had revealed His final message to mankind. Unlike previous prophets, this last prophet had been sent to all communities, and his message rectified the errors that had crept into the revealed teachings brought by earlier prophets. What was best for human beings was clear: the worship of the one God and following the religion of Muhammad ﷺ, which would promote “felicity in both abodes (al-saʿāda fī al-dārayn), ”both this world and the next. But the Qur’an and the Prophet ﷺ also gave people the right to reject this path and continue practicing their religion under Muslim rule. As Muslim scholars and rulers understood it, their mission was clear: extend the rule of Islam and God’s law as far as possible not so that everyone could be forcibly converted to Islam (this hardly ever occurred) but so “the word of God would be supreme” (a famous Hadith)[4] and so that as many people as possible could live within God’s final order under heaven.
The order of this world was clear to the scholarly and political elite who shaped and ruled it. As the Prophet ﷺ said, “Islam is exalted. It is not exalted over.”[5] Non-Muslims, who were for many centuries and in some cases permanently the majority in Islamic civilization, could continue to live by their own religions and religious laws.[6] Anyone who wanted could convert to Islam and join the ruling class of Muslims. (This raises interesting questions about which system is more discriminatory, one in which a religious group rules but is totally open to entrants, or one in which only the citizens of a nation state enjoy full (or any) rights there, and where acquiring citizenship is mostly difficult or impossible). But encouraging, publicizing, or even allowing, movement in the opposite direction, downward out of the ruling class, was a different matter.
In the logic of this order, questioning Islam’s primacy was to undermine the societal order itself. As a result, all pre-modern Muslim schools of law considered apostasy to be a serious crime. The majority of Muslim scholars considered it among the Hudud crimes (leading voices in the Hanafi school of law were exceptions to this), albeit with some important distinctions.[7]
That apostasy was understood primarily as a threat to an overarching political order and not as a crime in and of itself is clear from how Muslim jurists described it. Apostasy differed from other serious crimes, such as fornication and murder, because on its own it did not transgress the rights of others. As a result, unlike other crimes, if someone who had left Islam decided to recant, the crime of apostasy vanished and no punishment followed. For a crime like murder, on the other hand, even if the perpetrator deeply regretted his act, the harm had been done and the victim and their family had a right to justice. Leaving Islam and embracing unbelief are great offenses, said the famous Hanafi jurist al-Sarakhsī (d. circa 1096 CE). “But they are between the human being (lit. the slave) and his Lord,” he added. Their punishment lies in the Hereafter. “What punishments there are here in this world [for apostasy],” he continued, “are policies set down for the common good of human beings (siyāsāt mashrūʿa li-maṣāliḥ taʿūdu ilā al-ʿibād).” Someone who repeatedly and insistently proclaimed their apostasy from Islam was akin to a violent criminal threatening public safety, al-Sarakhsī explained. The common good that apostasy threatened was the Shari’ah itself and the rights that it pledged to protect for all its subjects, Muslim or not: rights to physical integrity, property, religion, reason, family, and honor (ʿirḍ).[8]
The word that al-Sarakhsī used to indicate ‘policy,’ siyāsa, is crucial for understanding the functioning of Islamic law in general and issues like apostasy in particular. Siyāsa can be translated as politics, governance, administrative law, and even criminal law. Its functions varied, but what unified them is that, while most of Islamic law was applied by independent Muslim judges (in fact, it was jealously guarded by them in part out of fear of political abuse), siyāsa fell under the purview of the ruler/political authority.[9] Siyāsa included areas that clearly belonged to an executive political authority, such as foreign policy, military organization, dealing with non-Muslim minorities in a Muslim state, and mundane administrative laws (think: traffic laws). Other issues, like taxation, would come under siyāsa, provided the ruler didn’t exceed certain limits.
Finally, there were areas of criminal law like violent theft or premeditated murder that Muslim jurists understood to be left to the ruler for final decision. According to al-Sarakhsī and many other Muslim legal theorists, this is where the topic of apostasy belonged. Siyāsa was still very much part of the Shari’ah, but it was applied by the temporal ruler, not the Muslim scholars/judges (though, on issues like criminal law, Muslim scholars formulated much of the law that the political authorities applied and they were almost always present in the criminal courts). So when a judge in mid-tenth-century Egypt ruled that an apostate should be executed, he had to ask the caliph’s permission to have the execution carried out. A few years earlier, when the governor of Egypt had been presented with a Muslim who had converted to Christianity, the judgment could only occur with a judge’s consultation.[10]
In all aspects of siyāsa, Muslim scholars affirmed the basic principle that the ruler’s policies “regarding [his] subjects are conditioned on [pursuing] the common good.”[11] As we’ll see, apostasy differed from other Hudud crimes and crimes like murder in at least one important way. Once someone was found guilty of general Hudud crimes, the ruling authority had to carry out the punishment (based on the Prophet’s statement that he would even punish his own daughter if she were guilty).[12] If a murder occurred, the ruling authority could not refuse to punish the guilty party if the victim’s relatives wanted that, since this was their right.[13] Our discussion here will show that dealing with apostasy, by contrast, fell wholly within the ruling authority’s discretion.
gravenimage says
More ugly claptrap from “Daniel”:
The Shari’ah consists of some laws that remain the same regardless of changing circumstances and others that change with them. Most of the Shari’ah is up to individual Muslims to follow in their own lives. Some are for judges to implement in courts. Finally, the third set of laws is for the ruler or political authority to implement based on the best interests of society.
…………………………
Many Muslim nations enforce Shari’ah–as do many individual Muslims, often violently. This is known as “enjoining the good and forbidding the wrong”. Shari’ah patrols are based on this idea–as are many “Honor Killings”.
More:
The Shari’ah ruling on Muslims who decide to leave Islam belongs to this third group. Implemented in the past to protect the integrity of the Muslim community, today this important goal can best be reached by Muslim governments using their right to set punishments for apostasy aside.
…………………………
Actually, the claim that persectuting and murdering apostates is only practiced by the rulers of Muslim nations is utterly false. Apostasy is against the law in much of Dar-al-Islam, and individual Muslims regularly murder apostates.
More:
One of the most common accusations leveled against Islam involves the freedom of religion. The problem, according to critics: Islam doesn’t have any.
This criticism might strike some as odd since it has been well established that both the religion of Islam and Islamic civilization have shown a level of religious tolerance that would make modern Americans blush.
…………………………
Actually, all non-Muslims are systematically abused in Muslim nations–the claim that this abuse only applies to Muslim apostates is a lie.
And the idea that modern Americans would “blush” over the horrors of Muslims persectuting and murdering Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and all other Infidels including Agnostics and Atheists may be true, but not for the reason “Daniel” claims. There is no such abuse in the United States, which has freedom of religion.
More:
So what are these critics talking about? What they are referring to is not the issue of tolerating those who follow other religions. They are talking about the traditional Islamic punishment for Muslims who leave their own religion. Known as ridda or irtidād in Arabic, this is usually translated as apostasy in English (the generic act of renouncing or leaving one’s religion).
Like the issues of stoning and hand chopping, apostasy in Islam can only be understood if one is willing to look beyond provocative headlines and delve into the nature of how jurisprudence developed in the pre-modern world and in Islam in particular. As with these harsh punishments (see Yaqeen’s publication on the Hudud punishments here), modern confusion over apostasy in Islam has less to do with some basic flaw in Islam’s scriptures and more to do with a major development in human history, namely the greatly diminished role of religion in the law and governance of modern societies.
Though we’ll refer to ridda as apostasy for the sake of convenience, as in so many cases, the heart of the matter lies in the simple act of translation. In the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the early Muslim community, the Arabic noun ridda and the verb for engaging in it were understood not as meaning a personal choice of changing one’s religion but as the public act of political secession from the Muslim community.
Interestingly, this dimension of apostasy as betraying and opposing one’s community, missing in the normal usage of the English word ‘apostasy,’ is actually recovered in sociological studies of apostasy. Many studies looking at those who leave religious groups as well as communities defined by secular ideologies show that what distinguishes apostates from those who simply leave is that apostates become active opponents of their previous identity, more renegades than mere dissenters.[1] Along the same lines, the problem with ridda in Islam was not that a person was exercising their freedom of conscience and choosing to no longer follow the religion. The problem was when such a decision became a public act with political implications.
…………………………
This is because there is no private conscience in Islam–if one is not a “soldier of Islam”, then one is held to have betrayed the Ummah.
This is actually sick, sick stuff.
Note this thug spouting apologia for hand chopping and stoning, as well–*just sickening*. Hardly surprising, though.
More:
As far back as the first complex societies in Mesopotamia, human society saw religion as essential….
…………………………
The idea that this simple historical fact means that we have tp accept Muslim savages murdering apostates is just bizarre.
More cut-and-paste:
The Muslims who built up Islamic civilization inherited and affirmed this ancient assumed role of religion. Muslim political theorists wrote that a widely-adhered-to religion and a stable state were the two most important pillars of worldly prosperity.[2] “Religion and earthly sovereignty were twins,” went a common refrain.[3]
In Islamic civilization, the order of the world under heaven was simple. Muslims believed that God had revealed His final message to mankind. Unlike previous prophets, this last prophet had been sent to all communities, and his message rectified the errors that had crept into the revealed teachings brought by earlier prophets. What was best for human beings was clear: the worship of the one God and following the religion of Muhammad ﷺ, which would promote “felicity in both abodes (al-saʿāda fī al-dārayn), ”both this world and the next. But the Qur’an and the Prophet ﷺ also gave people the right to reject this path and continue practicing their religion under Muslim rule.
…………………………
Only if they lived as oppressed minorities under dhimmitude. Note that the repulsive “Daniel” is bragging about this persection. *Ugh*.
More:
As Muslim scholars and rulers understood it, their mission was clear: extend the rule of Islam and God’s law as far as possible not so that everyone could be forcibly converted to Islam (this hardly ever occurred) but so “the word of God would be supreme” (a famous Hadith)[4] and so that as many people as possible could live within God’s final order under heaven.
The order of this world was clear to the scholarly and political elite who shaped and ruled it. As the Prophet ﷺ said, “Islam is exalted. It is not exalted over.”[5] Non-Muslims, who were for many centuries and in some cases permanently the majority in Islamic civilization, could continue to live by their own religions and religious laws.[6]
…………………………
Actually, forced conversion is very common under Islam–it is just the Muslims do not consider compelling victims to convert to Islam at the point of the sword to be forced–after all, the victim always has the option of accepting death. *Ugh*.
More:
Anyone who wanted could convert to Islam and join the ruling class of Muslims. (This raises interesting questions about which system is more discriminatory, one in which a religious group rules but is totally open to entrants, or one in which only the citizens of a nation state enjoy full (or any) rights there, and where acquiring citizenship is mostly difficult or impossible). But encouraging, publicizing, or even allowing, movement in the opposite direction, downward out of the ruling class, was a different matter.
…………………………
Islam is always out to extend the reach of Islam. It is a one-way street–to quote the famous lyrics, you can check in any time you want, but you can never leave.
Again, bragging about this savagery is disgusting.
More:
In the logic of this order, questioning Islam’s primacy was to undermine the societal order itself. As a result, all pre-modern Muslim schools of law considered apostasy to be a serious crime. The majority of Muslim scholars considered it among the Hudud crimes (leading voices in the Hanafi school of law were exceptions to this), albeit with some important distinctions.[7]
That apostasy was understood primarily as a threat to an overarching political order and not as a crime in and of itself is clear from how Muslim jurists described it. Apostasy differed from other serious crimes, such as fornication and murder, because on its own it did not transgress the rights of others.
…………………………
Islamic law has not changed as “Daniel” pretends–daring to leave the horrors of Islam is considered a crime carrying the death penalty.
This penalty is still applied today throughout much of Dar-al-Islam, as well as by many Muslims in “Honor Killings”.
More:
Finally, there were areas of criminal law like violent theft or premeditated murder that Muslim jurists understood to be left to the ruler for final decision. According to al-Sarakhsī and many other Muslim legal theorists, this is where the topic of apostasy belonged. Siyāsa was still very much part of the Shari’ah, but it was applied by the temporal ruler, not the Muslim scholars/judges (though, on issues like criminal law, Muslim scholars formulated much of the law that the political authorities applied and they were almost always present in the criminal courts).
…………………………
Again, the claim that the punishment of apostacy to be left to the whims of individual rulers is quite false. Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Maldives, Libya, Mauritania, Qatar, Somalia, the UAE, Yemen, Brunei and other Muslim nations have laws against apostasy, and Saudi Arabia and Iran regularly persecute apostates, including judicially murdering them.
Infidel says
Danial, TL:DR – too long, didn’t read! Next time, try breaking up your writings into paragraphs. Didn’t you learn this at school?
john smith says
Mortimer, as knowledgeable as Daniel may well believe himself to be. He has a helluva long way to go before he can compete with a true scholar, such as yourself.
gravenimage says
Spot on, John.
PRCS says
‘this was just a general rehearsal’
I think the Mosad should conduct a general rehearsal–on him.
PRCS says
Yahya Sinwar’s speech:
Hamas Leader In Gaza Yahya Al-Sinwar Salutes Al-Jazeera TV, Iran, And Yasser Arafat, Adds: We Have 10,000 ‘Martyrdom-Seekers’ Within Israel; Our Missile Capability Remains Intact, Can Hit Tel Aviv With A 250-Rocket Salvo; We Have 500 KM Of Tunnels In The Gaza Strip
https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-leader-gaza-yahya-sinwar-we-have-500-km-of-tunnels-in-gaza
Think of Hitler’s speeches as you watch it.
Walter Sieruk says
With that vicious malice-filled statement by that jihadist, “top dog” chief it’s therefore very necessary to reiterate an important message .
The message is the jihadists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad base their anti-Jewish beliefs on the Qu ‘ran which reads the are Jews are “apes and pigs” 2:65. 7:166. 5:60. Likewise. Hamas jihadists base their murderous violence against the Jewish people by the violent and deadly instruction found in the Qu ‘ran, 2:191. 4:89. 5:33. 9:5. 111,112, 123. 47:4.
Furthermore, the very foundation of and for Islam is the Qu ‘ran ,this leads to very important question: “Is the Qu ‘ran the Word of God or is it a fabrication of a man. Thus, is the Qu ‘ran the truth or a fiction and a hoax ?”
The answer is clearly given on pages 145 through 157 in THE ISLAMIC INVASION by Robert Morey in which he wrote a section on the Qu ‘ran with its self-contradictions. Just two of the many he cited are the following “The Qu ‘ran differs on whether a day is a thousand years or fifty thousand years in God’s sight’ and “Who was first to believe? Abraham or Moses [Sura 6:14 versus 7:143]?
The above is inconsistent and illogical. Further, Morey wrote about “The fact that Judaism and Christianity broke up into different sects was used in the Qu ‘ran to prove that they are not of God [Suras 30:20-32. 42:13, 14]. Yet Islam has broken up into many warring sects and therefore cannot be true if the Qu ‘ran is right.”
Moreover, Morey in his book shows many more contradictions and absurdities in the Qu ‘ran, there are and how Muhammad incorporated extra Biblical and Jewish folklore along with pre-Islamic Arabian myth and parts of Zoroastrian and Hindu stories into the Qu ‘ran.
Moreover, the Muslims claim that “the Qu ‘ran is the direct, literal word of God unmodified in any way by the Prophet who uttered them at the bidding of God.”
In addition, in the book UNVEILING ISLAM by Ergun Mehmet Caner and Eethi Caner has shown that the Quran was modified in the following account on pages 45. “Muhammad felt the need to improve on the words of Allah, since he changed Allah’s wisdom for his own on several occasions. A hadith tells of the nonchalant emendations of Muhammad:’ On a number of occasions he [a scribe] had, with the Prophet’s consent changed the closing words of verses. For example, when the prophet had said ‘God is mighty and wise ‘ Adbollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down ‘Knowing and wise’ and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, Adbollah renounced Islam on the grounds that revelations, if from God could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites.”
Other writers reveal that later Muhammad and his people did go war with the Qorayshites and he personally killed Abdollah. Obviously Abdollah knew too much and Muhammad wanted Abdollah’s knowledge to die with him.”
In conclusion, the Qu ‘ran is not only a fiction also a hoax and therefore the entire foundation of Hamas and Islamic Jihad based on lies and falsehood of that bogus “holy book.”
Walter Sieruk says
The jihadists of Hamas are so horrendously , vicious brutal ,bloodthirsty cruel murderous and destructive that they are similar , in many ways to the despicable villains described in the Bible which reads “Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways ; and the way of peace they have not known.” Romans 3:15-17. [N.K.J.V.]
Keith O says
Is it just me, or does anyone else notice that this fine specimen of Islamic dominance remind you of someone with “special needs”?
If Sinwar is Hamas’s best and brightest, as all leaders should be, then the people of Gaza are screwed!
somehistory says
Of course it was.
And they all got dressed in their best war clothing….hoping it would go right into the “final curtain” for Israel….Jews, and anyone else living there…anyone, no matter….would be finished due to this son of satan and his cohorts in evil being wholly devoted to the demon, carrying out the “desires of their father.”
See the evil in his eyes…no one should doubt this slime’s intentions..
gravenimage says
Hamas top dog promises more jihad stabbings and fires, claims ‘this was just a general rehearsal’
………………
Pious Muslims have nothing to offer save more bloody violence. *Ugh*.
OLD GUY says
Hamas top DOG what an insult to dogs he is. These cowards only attack old men, women and children or stab you in the back. When faced with our military and fighting men they run back to their snake holes and caves to hide behind the women. They attack Israel from civilian locations hoping that when Israel counters they can hold up dead and injured women and children for the liberal media to film and report on.
Andrew Blackadder says
I look in the face, the eyes, of those who tell me islam is a religion peace, but all I see are zombie eyes, eyes of hate, a total vibration of evil, a people who think their god commands them to kill everybody that doesnt agree with their version of god, a people that believe their god created them so they will then turn around and die for him, and take a few others with him, and then he will finally get laid in paradise, so please stop with the religion of peace nonsense and call it what it really is….
A Fascist Religious Cult followed by moronic empty headed butt ugly goat shaggers.