Brave Knights of Allah hide behind women

December 31, 2010

But then, women are little better than chattel in Islam, so why not use them as living bombs?

The Taliban and al Qaeda have established female suicide bombing cells in remote areas of northwestern Pakistan and northeastern Afghanistan. The female suicide bombers have struck in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The existence of the cells, which appeared evident after female suicide bombers attacked twice over the past five months in Afghanistan and Pakistan, was confirmed by a 12-year-old Pakistani girl named Meena Gul.

Gul, who said she was trained to be a “human bomb,” was detained by Pakistani police in the Munda area in Pakistan’s northwestern district of Dir, according to the Times of India.

“Gul said that women suicide bombers were trained for their deadly task in small cells on both sides of the porous border and were dispatched to their missions with a sermon, ‘God will reward you with a place in heaven.'”

Oh, and did I mention some of the women are just girls? Yes, for the valiant jihadi, it’s women and children first. Preferably in the same person.

A long time ago, someone explained to me the First Rule of Texas Common Law: “He needed killing.”

Well, these barbarians need killing.

RELATED: These “holy warriors” also exploit emotionally abused women, the elderly, and the developmentally disabled. Such wonderful people.

 

Advertisements

If a beating is an honor, what is a stoning?

September 26, 2010

Yesterday I wrote about an Egyptian Muslim cleric who told us that the beating of women was instituted by Allah to honor women.

If that’s “honoring,” then stoning must be the equivalent of a gold medal:

Rare Video Shows Taliban Allegedly Stoning Woman to Death in Pakistan

A rare video reportedly smuggled out of northwest Pakistan allegedly shows a woman being stoned to death by Taliban militants in the upper region of Orakzai.

Al Aan, a Dubai-based pan-Arab television channel that focuses on women’s issues, said it had obtained cellphone footage that it says shows a woman being executed because she was seen out with a man. The killing reportedly took place two months ago and was smuggled out by a Taliban member who attended the stoning, according to Al Aan. ABC News could not independently confirm the cellphone video’s authenticity.

The video, which seems to show a woman tethered to the ground as a group of men throw stones at her, is so graphic that ABC News cannot show it in its entirety. Parts of it air today on the 25th episode of “Brian Ross Investigates.”

“It’s difficult to know where and when it was shot,” says Gayle Lemmon, deputy director of the Women and Foreign Policy Program at the Council of Foreign Relations, in an interview with Ross, “It is consistent with videos that have been coming from Taliban-controlled areas since the ’90s.”

Lemmon says that when women “stray outside the line” in Taliban-controlled areas, they may “face severe punishment.”

“Women are respected as carriers of the family honor,” says Lemmon, “but they also pay the price.”

If that’s respect…

Lemmon’s last statement is nonsense, of course, as I pointed out yesterday. They aren’t respected, except perhaps in the perverse sense of “if you dress a certain way and accept a man as your keeper, you won’t get raped.” Otherwise, according to Sheikh al-Hilali, she can expect to be treated like meat left out for the cat. Some respect.

Rather, what happens to the woman in the video is a consequence of women being made to bear the burden of the man’s sexual behavior. The victim in the video was seen walking with a man, presumably not of her family. Doesn’t she know what might have happened, since a man cannot control himself? That made her a whore and dishonored her family, and so she had to die by being pelted with rocks.

Respect. Honor.

Like Hell.

LINKS: Jihad Watch has the full video (Fair warning, it’s very graphic) and also provides links that debunk apologists who claim stoning is not a canonical part of Islam.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


In most cases, this would mean war

July 14, 2010

Based on communications intercepted during the operation itself and the confession of one of the operatives, India has accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, of being behind the 2008 Mumbai massacre:

India has accused Pakistan’s powerful spy agency of planning and executing the 2008 Mumbai attacks, in the strongest and most specific allegation of Islamabad’s involvement in the assault from a top official.

The remark comes a day before the foreign ministers of the rival nations are set to meet in Islamabad to attempt to rebuild a fragile peace dialogue that was shattered by the attacks, which killed 166 people. It appeared to be an attempt to ratchet up the pressure on Pakistan to prosecute people whom India says were deeply involved in the assault.

In an interview published Wednesday, Home Secretary G.K. Pillai accused Pakistan’s powerful spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence of playing a key role the attacks.

“It was not just a peripheral role. They (the agency) were literally controlling and coordinating it from the beginning till the end,” Pillai told the Indian Express newspaper.

Sponsoring a raid on another country’s city that results in over 150 deaths would usually earn one a visit from the other guy’s military. And I have no doubt that a) India would have every justification to crush Pakistan and b) they could do it within a matter of weeks, if they tried.

But, then, both have nuclear weapons, which no doubt gives India considerable pause. Look at it this way: the point of nuclear weapons is that your enemy can’t be sure of what will trigger a massive response, therefore they aren’t likely to push you too far. In Pakistan’s case, the ISI (which is highly Islamized and only nominally under government control) guesses it can get away with quite a bit without provoking war with India, because India, on its part, cannot be sure that an invasion of Pakistan wouldn’t lead to a nuclear strike by a desperate Pakistani military. India also has to be concerned that punitive action against Pakistan, with its weak and unstable governments, might cause a collapse of central authority and the passing of Pakistan’s nukes into much more dangerous and unpredictable hands.

Hence New Delhi’s relatively mild words (after all, they’re still talking) and the apparent determination that an attack against the nation’s financial capital and the deaths of several hundred citizens isn’t worth war.

Yet.

The danger lies in a Pakistani miscalculation of India’s response after the next incident, and there will be a “next incident,” I’m sure. The ISI isn’t sorry this happened, only that they got caught. With a large part of the service comprising  jihad-minded Muslims, they’re bound to continue their terror war against India. The risk is that the Indians decide they’ve had enough and should “do something” about Pakistan.

At which point things get really scary.

(via DaveedGR)


Pakistan: With friends like these

May 19, 2010

Pursuing leads in the failed attempt by Muslim terrorist Faisal Shahzad to set off a car-bomb in Times Square, the Pakistani military has arrested one its own army officers for involvement in the plot:

Just one day after Faisal Shahzad’s first appearance in a US court, a big development is coming out of Pakistan, where the failed Times Square attack originated. A major in the Pakistani army has been arrested by investigators for ties to the failed terror plot in New York. From the LA Times:

  • The major’s involvement with suspect Faisal Shahzad, who was arrested at John F. Kennedy International Airport as he attempted to fly to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, remains unclear. Law enforcement sources said the major had met Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, in Islamabad, the capital, and was in cellphone contact with him.
  • The major’s arrest marks the first time someone in Pakistan’s military establishment has been directly linked to the case. The sources would not say when the alleged meeting and phone calls between Shahzad and the major took place, or what was discussed. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the investigation.

Bear in mind two things: we give the Pakistanis billions in aid money, while their military and intelligence services are riddled with jihadist sympathizers.

Something’s wrong with that picture; I’m not sure what…  Doh


I will be shocked if this is true

May 10, 2010

And I emphasize the “if” while chewing on a large grain of salt, but it would be almost the sweetest thing in the world if we have captured Mullah Omar.

Can I volunteer for the waterboarding detail if this is true? Huh? Pretty please?  Praying


All the secrets that are fit to print

March 15, 2010

Sometimes, one has to wonder just whose side the New York Times is on:

Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants

Under the cover of a benign government information-gathering program, a Defense Department official set up a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to help track and kill suspected militants, according to military officials and businessmen in Afghanistan and the United States.

The official, Michael D. Furlong, hired contractors from private security companies that employed former C.I.A. and Special Forces operatives. The contractors, in turn, gathered intelligence on the whereabouts of suspected militants and the location of insurgent camps, and the information was then sent to military units and intelligence officials for possible lethal action in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the officials said.

Why don’t you send the Taliban photos of the field operatives and their travel schedules, too?

For the record, if someone* is using off-the-record funding to ID and then kill Taliban and al Qaeda targets … good!

*(Like, oh, the US Government because certain big-mouthed newspapers that richly deserve to go out of business blew the cover of earlier covert ops?)

Nitwits.

(via The Jawa Report)


Religion of Tolerance and Misogyny watch

February 22, 2010

In Pakistan, four brothers beat their sibling unconscious because he refused to convert to Islam:

The four older Muslim brothers of a 26-year-old Christian beat him unconscious here earlier this month because he refused their enticements to convert to Islam, the victim told Compass.

Riaz Masih, whose Christian parents died when he was a boy, said his continual refusal to convert infuriated his siblings and the Muslim cleric who raised them, Moulvi Peer Akram-Ullah. On Feb. 8, he said, his brothers ransacked his house in this Punjab Province town 233 kilometers (145 miles) southwest of Islamabad.

“They threatened that it was the breaking point now, and that I must convert right now or face death,” Masih said. “They said killing an infidel is not a sin, instead it’s righteousness in the sight of Allah almighty.”

Masih begged them to give him a few minutes to consider converting and then tried to escape, but they grabbed him and beat him with bamboo clubs, leaving him for dead, he said.

Now, it’s true that the Qur’an (2:256) warns against compulsion (forced conversion):

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

(More commentary)

But Islamic apologists who cite this verse always seem to forget the doctrine of abrogation, in which later revelations supersede older ones. Thus the following verse (Qur’an 8:39) supersedes 2:256 because it is a later revelation:

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.

(More commentary)

“Them” includes Christians and Jews, because they were originally given Islam by Allah and his prophets, but corrupted the message. Thus, Riaz’s brothers were justified in their minds in demanding he convert and attacking him when he refused, in obedience to many injunctions in the Qur’an and the hadith (sayings of Muhammad), of which 8:39 is just an example.

Oh, I almost forgot. The misogyny part of this: In return for converting, Riaz was offered many things, including his choice of a woman. In other words, she would be nothing more than a reward, like a car or a house.

Might as well stick a price tag on her and sell her.

(via Jihad Watch)