Friday, November 17, 2006

Does He Use Craftsman Or Black & Decker?

This Was Sent To Me By John K

The next time someone yells about Abu Ghraib and torture, remind them of Abu Deraa.
As for using electric drills, I would never mutilate a human being because Islam prohibits mutilation, even for dogs
Really? Tell that to al-Qaeda and the almost 3000 human beings who were mutilated five years ago. Tell that to the people Saddam's hell spawn mutilated with wood chippers and chainsaws. Tell that to the people mutilated in Israel.


Anonymous said...

1) Mutilation and killing are considered different things by most people.
2) Saddam's an atheist.
3) On the topic of Israel, since September 29, 2000, over 4 times as many Palestinians have been killed than Israelis. So you're citing an imbalanced case.

Christopher Lee said...

1) According to Websters:
:to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
:to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

Seems to me that someone who's been burned by jet fuel or ripped to shreds has been mutilated.

2) I didn't say Saddam.

3) As usual, you ignore the point. Muslims blow people up and mutilate them in the process.

Anonymous said...

Whatever za; Nice try. You are such a putz...

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

"Muslims blow people up and mutilate them in the process."

What's with the obsession about Muslims? It seems as though some people think that the words 'Islam' and 'terror' are interchangable.
I got the idea that America was in a war against 'terrorism', not Islam, am I mistaken?

I've often heard Americans boast of their country as 'the land of the free, and the home of the brave"
It sounds like there's so much 'freedom' and 'bravery', that it is all but illegal to 'follow the path of the Prophet', and the American public freak out everytime they see someone who they think is an Arab.
How far away are spontaneous lynchings?
Terrorism alright, you've got women and children 'terrified' that someone will find-out they are Muslims

Communism, Islam, next there'll be a war against 'night time', because a good many Americans are 'afraid of the dark',
I can't wait to see the squad of heavily armed/trained men who go after 'The Boogeyman'

Anonymous said...

Seems to me that someone who's been burned by jet fuel or ripped to shreds has been mutilated.
And by that definition, if you shoot someone, you've mutilated them. There's gotta be a line drawn somewhere otherwise almost every method of killing is also mutilation.

I didn't say Saddam.
Right, okay. I thought you were referring to his institutionalised torture methods, not the Sunnis. Gotcha.

As usual, you ignore the point. Muslims blow people up and mutilate them in the process.
Yeah, but so do Israelis. So do Americans. So does just about everyone. Generally, killing someone is not considered mutilation unless you go out of your way to do their body (or corpse) extra damage. Damaging without the intent to kill, or harm to someone who is already dead.

Anonymous said...

So; Za; In your opinion this is not news or it's a Non-story?

Anonymous said...

Angus; the war on terrorism is the war on Islam. How many times do we have to tell you? And why cannot you see what is happening? You may think it is misguided and illogical and wrong and whatever else; but to not see it's existance is plain foolish. You need to be more aware of your surroundings. In a "World" sense.
The boogyman is next. Right now he is not trying to conquor the world with his Ideology and violence. Whatever the threat to western life; we the United States of America will keep your country safe from extinction whether you appreciate it or not; even when you cannot even figure out you life is in danger. Thats just the way we are.

Anonymous said...

Franchising Terror, Mosque By Mosque

Communists had 'deep sleepers' who had to be controlled in a hierarchical chain. But with Islam, who needs that?

Mark Steyn
National Post
Friday, November 17, 2006


Islam is not just a religion. Those lefties who bemoan what America is doing to provoke "the Muslim world" would go bananas if any Western politician started referring to "the Christian world." When such sensitive guardians of the separation of church and state endorse the first formulation but not the second, they implicitly accept that Islam has a political sovereignty too. There is an "Organization of the Islamic Conference": It's like the EU and the Commonwealth and the G8 -- that is, an organization of nation states whose heads of government hold regular meetings. Imagine if someone proposed an "Organization of the Christian Conference" that would hold summits attended by prime ministers and presidents and voted as a bloc in transnational bodies.

So it's not merely that there's a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project -- and, in fact, an imperial project -- in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever's your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified. And, yes, Christianity has had its blood-drenched moments, but the Spanish Inquisition, which remains a byword for theocratic violence, killed fewer people in a century and a half than the jihad does in a typical year.

So we have a global terrorist movement insulated within a global political project insulated within a severely self-segregating religion whose adherents are the fastest-growing demographic in the developed world. The jihad thus has a very potent brand inside a highly dispersed and very decentralized network much more efficient than anything the CIA can muster. And these fellows can hide in plain sight.


And so it goes. The mosques are recruiters for the jihad and play an important role in ideological subordination and cell discipline. In globalization terms, that's a perfect model. Unlike the Soviets, it's a franchise business rather than owner-operated; the Commies had "deep sleepers" who had to be "controlled" in a very hierarchical chain. But who needs that with Islam? Not long after Sept. 11, I said, just as an aside, that these days whenever something goofy turns up on the news, chances are it involves some fellow called Mohammed. It was a throwaway line, but if you want to compile chapter and verse, you can add to the list every week.

- A plane flies into the World Trade Center? Mohammed Atta.

- A sniper starts killing gas station customers around Washington, D.C.? John Allen Muhammed.

- A guy fatally stabs a Dutch movie director? Mohammed Bouyeri.

- A gunman shoots up the El Al counter at Los Angeles airport? Hesham Mohamed Hedayet.

- A terrorist slaughters dozens in Bali? Noordin Mohamed.

- A British subject self-detonates in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif.

- A terrorist cell bombs the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed.

- A gang rapist preys on the women of Sydney? Mohammed Skaf.

- A Canadian terror cell is arrested for plotting to bomb Ottawa and behead the prime minister? Mohammed Dirie, Amin Mohamed Durrani and Yasim Abdi Mohamed.

These last three represent a "broad strata" of Canadian society, according to Mike McDonnell, assistant commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and a man who must have aced sensitivity training class. To the casual observer, the broad strata would seem to be a very singular stratum: In their first appearance in court, 12 men arrested in that Ontario plot requested the Koran.

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

"the war on terrorism is the war on Islam"

Blind, hateful prejudice.

So John, what do you suggest?
Should we round up the fucking lot of them, execute them in the name of freedom, peace, and American values?
How are you going to determine who is a muslim, and who is not. Are people going to be executed for being in possession of a beard, and for 'sounding foreign'?
Are you actively participating in rounding up muslims in your home town/city?
How many have you killed?
Or do you want to start with Muslims in foreign lands?
Do you find ethnic-cleansing distateful work or is it just common variety hypocrisy?

"even when you cannot even figure out you life is in danger."
I recognise my life is in danger all right, I am shit-scared that that American freedom will make me 'safe'.
The world largest Islamic nation directly to the north, that doesn't bother me like 'American Freedom'

"we the United States of America will keep your country safe from extinction whether you appreciate it or not"
"whether we appreciate it or not", America is going do 'what's in our best interests', whether we realise it or not... see that's the kind of 'freedom' that bothers me. If I don't appreciate it, are you going to kill me?
I'm just afraid that everything I hold dear will be 'freedomed to death' in the process (like my fellow human-being, regardless of who they are, or what they believe).
If you talk like that you will get your war (and won't just be Islam that you have to destroy to 'protect safety').
America's 'war of terror' is barely tolerated at the present (the elections in the USA are some indication that a significant portion of the America public aren't impressed with what is being done in their names, the fact that people with 'no confidence in the Democrats' voted for them, should be fair indication that they want 'anything, but what George has been doing')
The fact that the rest of the world has given the America the 'benifit of the doubt' when presenting dubious/fictious 'intelligence' (all the jokes about 'American military intelligence have been done to death, and certainly longoer a laughing matter), and not reacted more stongly at the rash invasions (will you only be happy when every country has been 'liberated' from its Islamic content?), does not mean that the rest of the world endorses the actions of America.
I know I'm not alone in Australia, in being ashamed of the fact that our 'jelly-back' of a prime minister effectively asnwers all questions on Terrorism with "Whatever George said", And take comfort in the fact that the opposition could run 'a steaming pile of dog shit' against John Howard at the next election, and still have a good hopes to win (sorry Kim)

You know John, the last person who spoke about any religion, like you do about Islam, was a guy called Hitler, who promised 'to keep the world safe from the Jews'. If you condemn all of Islam, then you are no better than Hitler.

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

Brillant John, just kill everyone with 'Mohammed' in their name!

Just a hint, start with the phone book.

Anonymous said...

The challenge in the war on Islam is not killing people. The challenge is truly defining it so normally level-headed people will stop killing others in it's name.
The "war" is on the Ideology, intolorance, and supremist Imperialism of Islam. This so called religion started by a delusional murdering pedophile in the 7th century.

Anonymous said...

Al-Qaeda: Kill the Christians
By Patrick Poole | November 17, 2006

An al-Qaeda manual made a surprise reappearance on October 31st in a new repackaged, reformatted edition on an online jihadi forum associated with the terrorist organization. The manual, A Guide for the Undecided on the Legitimacy of Killing Christians, (Irshad al-Hayara fi Ibahat Dimaa al-Nasara) made its first appearance back in September 2002, published by the al-Qaeda “think tank,” the now defunct Center for Islamic Research and Study, in their bi-weekly magazine, Sawt al-Jihad (The Voice of Jihad). Translated excerpts from the 56-page manual, authored by Hafid Abu-Basir, are available from the Site Institute.

But republication of this manual in a new format has counter-terrorism officials concerned that it’s re-release might be a sign of forthcoming terror attacks directed at Americans. In Chapter 15 of the document, Abu-Basir offers encouragement to dispirited Muslims that fresh attacks against the American infidels are forthcoming:

Beloved ones, I bring you the great, joyful news, which is the coming attack in America, with the permission of Allah, in a new wonderful method. America will be shocked once more, and this time Bush of the infidels will cry again.

The Guide for the Undecided is an extensive theological warrant deeply rooted in Quranic and Hadith sources for the killing of Americans based on what the author alleges are historical wrongs committed by America against Muslims worldwide. An entire section of the work, “Al-Umariyah Conditions,” (Chapter 9) is dedicated to explaining that the only proper role for Christians and Jews are as subjected and submissive dhimmis – legal non-persons. It also provides justification for attacks directed at Muslim allies and Islamic governments working with the U.S. government and thoroughly rejects any coexistence with America.

The republication of this manual follows just weeks after an al-Qaeda-linked website released a manual by Egyptian Mohammed Khalil Al-Hakaymah, How to Fight Alone, a how-to guide for Muslims to conduct their own “Jihad of One” against the “Crusader-Zionists.” A brief analysis of al-Hakaymah’s manual by Geostrategy describes his instructions on how lone Muslims can take the battle to the infidels:

The recommended methods include stabbing, feeding overdoses of cocaine or heroin, injecting air via needles, assassination with guns, burning down homes, putting poisonous snakes in cars, tampering with car brakes, planting explosives in vehicles, running over people, and luring people and then killing them.

The book also highly recommends poisoning targets and includes various methods of preparing and obtaining lethal toxins, including botulism. The book also gives instructions on making improvised explosives.

Al-Hakaymah is playing a more visible role in the global jihad, attested to by none other than al-Qaeda number two man, Ahman al-Zawahiri, who praised his fellow Egyptian by name in a video statement released on August 5th. As counter-terrorism analyst Chris Zambelis explained in the October 10th and October 24th editions of TerrorismFocus, al-Hakaymah is playing a crucial role for al-Qaeda in breaking away from the Egyptian Islamic Group (Gama’a al-Islamiyya), who has criticized al-Qaeda and moderated their stand towards the Mubarak regime, and forging an alliance between his splinter group, Those Who Stand Firm for the Covenant (al-Thabeton ala al-Ahad), to utilize violence against infidels and Muslims rejecting al-Qaeda’s vision of global jihad alike.

Since the public acknowledgement of al-Hakaymah by Zawahiri, a number of instruction manuals and statements by al-Hakaymah have been posted online, including How to Fight Alone. One manual that has drawn considerable interest by intelligence agencies is the 151-page, The Myth of Delusion: Exposing the American Intelligence, which relies on a number of open source analyses to present a picture of U.S. intelligence institutions and methods. A complete translation of the work is available.

“The Myth of Delusion” is a critically important document, in that it expresses a conspiratorial worldview where U.S. intelligence is governed by a cabal of conservative think tanks, South Korean intelligence, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Texas oil interests, and – of course – the Israeli lobby (oddly, not much unlike anything you can find on several prominent American leftist blogs).

But its importance lies especially in the real-world advice offered to jihadis on evading detection by Western signals intelligence agencies by using disposable cell phones and avoiding the use of certain key-phrases to escape notice by the National Security Agency’s ECHELON system. As Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly recently noted, the manual also advises with stunning detail various CIA investigative techniques and the management of operatives.

All of these manuals, Abu Basir’s A Guide for the Undecided, al-Hakaymah’s How to Fight Alone and The Myth of Delusion, form an integral part of the burgeoning global jihad apparatus. Norwegian terrorism researcher Thomas Hegghammer has appropriately dubbed this genre “jihadi strategic studies,” which combines theological explication, military strategy, theory and planning, and practical how-to advice to guide the next generation of the global jihad movement.

This is what adds to the concern of counter-terrorism officials in the U.S. who see manuals, such as A Guide for the Undecided, which justifies violence against American civilians. Not only might this document itself and its recent reappearance anticipate terror attacks inside the U.S. in the near-term; but in the long-term, it serves as a template of terror that is intended to be followed by generations of followers advancing the global Islamic jihad. The growing library of jihadi strategic studies envisions violent confrontation with the West until the submission of the West under the green flag of Islam is made a reality.

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

... and you damn millions of peaceful people with the words of one psychopath.

Wow John, I'd love to live in your world where everything is in absolutes: 'black and white', 'good and evil', with the moral complexity of a hollywood film.

So if it's not about killing people... how is your super-simplified 'war on terror' going to achieve its goals of stopping Islam, if it isn't going kill them? Or are you just going to put them all in 'work camps'?
It's not about killing, but if all the muslims died in the process, then you'd be quietly thankful, wouldn't you John?

Go on John, it a war against all of Islam, how do you s'pose it achieves its aims without genocide?

Anonymous said...

So; Za; In your opinion this is not news or it's a Non-story?
No, I just think Chris is taking it wrong. He's blaming the religion, when the individuals are at fault.

Also, the thing he's missing is that this article serves to point out something about the media coverage of the "threats" in Iraq. It fictionalises them. Zarqawi for instance, was never that big in Iraq. Al Qaeda isn't actually doing much there, and most of the fighting isn't insurgency-based, it's sectarian. Yet for weeks, all we heard was Zarqawi this, Zarqawi that. Now we have "Shi'ite Zarqawi", and who knows how important he is, or whether he actually does all the things he's rumoured to do? War time is always good for making heroes and villains - for both sides. Doesn't mean that the person fits the legend.

Anonymous said...

Za; Should I refer you to the intercepted "letter" written from Zarqawi to Bin Laden mwentioning that the only way to achieve victory is to start a civil war. Sectarian violence. Surly you are not that daft to see what is happening.

Anonymous said...

Angus; If common people like myself anf yourself do not put up with the garbage that the leaders of Islam espouse in print and deed everyday; then I think that is a start to getting the word out about this so-called religion of hate. Genocide is only a last resort when western civilization has no other choice. Right now; you and I and others who see the destructive end to Islam should be speaking out against it; not dismissing its Ideology of hate and relegating its acts of religious piety (killing in Allahs name) to merly "individuals" or acts of "misguided individuals".

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

John, you say "so-called religion of hate", but it is only you (and a few others) who defame Islam as such.

Bin Laden and al Zarqawi aren't relious leaders (they are Terrorist leaders), but you fixate, and hold these Terrorists up, as being examples of Islam.

'Religious leader dismisses Terrorist as non-representative of Islam' doesn't seem to grab the sensationalist, simple minded media, but it is the reality of the situation.
So while you and a corrupt media fixate on deluded Terrorists, Islam wears the blame.

Turn off your 'fox news' and go speak to muslims. No, better still, go LISTEN to muslims (the average muslim can't be found on TV in camouflage with a Kalashnikov).

In the second-last census in Australia (the last one is not yet collated), a significant part of the population; under 'religion', replied 'Jedi'. Perhaps you'll relate to an example from 'Star Wars', where conventional wisdom has failed to make an impression.
'Obi Wan Kenobi' told his disciple 'Luke' "not give in to hate". Hate leads to the 'dark side of The Force'.

John, you seem resigned to your xenophobia, resigned to hatred of all things Islamic, without question.
I fear you are lost, and as such there is little point continuing this dialogue.
"Angus; If common people like myself anf yourself" ...what on earth gave you the idea I am 'common'?

Za, good luck with John!
(I don't presently think this is a fruitful use of my time... 'you can lead a horse to water...')

Canderous1 said...

There have been a few isolated cases of abuse by various individuals during the War On Terrorism. None of it ammounts to torture and it is intellectually weak and dishonest to accuse American soldiers of torture when you see the overwhelming evidence of actual torture found in Iraq. A soldier I serve with in my Reserve unit was an MP and served in a major prison in Iraq. He saw first hand what Saddam's regime did to people. First of all the prison yard was a graveyard. Anytime the engineers tried to move earth from the prison yard to build someting or improve infrastucture they would dig up thousands of skeletal remains in various states of decomposition. These bodies were buried all over the prison yard in unmarked, mass graves. One day while looking around the prison he found a room that the troops had boarded up and told everyone to stay away from. Well curiosity got the better of him and he went in. There were body parts, blood, and guts all over the walls. Meat hooks hung where human bodies were once displayed. There were various instruments of torture: shredders, drills, etc. There was even a vat that had contained acid. There were chains on the ceiling and a mechanism for dropping a person into the vat of acid slowly. This was almost surreal it was so awful he told me. I am glad I didn't see such a vivid example of torture myself while I was in Iraq, but I had known such things existed. Saddam and his regime was vicious and evil. The world is better now that he is out of power and now Iraq has the opportunity to be a better country. It remains to be seen if the Iraqi people want to live in freedom and prosperity and if they are willing to fight for it. The Iraqis I met during my time there made me cautiously optimistic that Iraq will be free.

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

"There have been a few isolated cases of abuse by various individuals during the War On Terrorism"

No, you're right, I wasn't thinking of individual solders. In fact it wouldn't be at all fair to hold a nation accountable for the unsanctioned actions of individuals (part of the reason the war of terror is an atrocity, nations wearing the consequences of the actions of individuals).
No, it is state-sanctioned torture that is the real atrocity (and of the practice of 'Rendition').
Bush and co. have had every opportunity to distance themselves for the use of torture, and we get the same gem about 'how he'll do everything he necessary to defend america', when being asked about torture, that's as close to endorsement that you'll get from a politician (even a stupid one), and will not say that 'america doesn't use torture'.

“Saddam and his regime was vicious and evil. The world is better now that he is out of power and now Iraq has the opportunity to be a better country.”
I really doubt that. It is estimated that over 20 years, Saddam killed 250,000 -290,000 people
The same source (see link) put the Iraqi casualties since March 2003 as approx 600,000

That does include the hundreds of thousands who died of starvation and disease in 1990’s as result of the ‘first war’, and the dying isn’t over by a long shot. Starvation and disease are going to kill hundreds of thousands in the coming years.

So from 1991 to 2011 (20 years) the death toll from American intervention/war (even by the most conservative estimates) will far exceed anything Saddam could manage(and he had american help: supporting his take-over, supplied arms to him)

Whatever way you look at it.

While terrorism maybe a threat, what has Iraq got to do with America, and its ‘War of Terror’?

Someone spell it out, and don’t give me this emotive bullshit about ‘finding mass graves’, America has/will fill more holes with dead Iraqis than Saddam ever did (and only found graves after invading without reason)

Don’t give me this ‘Saddam was a threat to the West’ crap either. That would be a pretty funny joke it weren’t that so many Iraqis have died because of it.

It is not America’s right to decide who rules other nations, and what form of government continues.
As for the future of Iraq, whether it is ‘free’, almost seems irrelevant. The infrastructure has been bombed out, and there is little hope of stable government (free or otherwise).
Iraqis starved after the ‘first war’ (in reality, there was no real stop in bombing), and Iraqis will starve in the future, and die of disease.
No real medical help to speak of, no industry, no agriculture, NO FUTURE.

America has robbed Iraq of the chance of the only kind of political change that would see Iraq and the world, better-off, one that doesn’t start with cruise missiles, and end in civil war and political instability. America has found the only course of action that could have made things worse for Iraq… and please don’t try and say that it doesn’t motivate otherwise peaceful people to become ‘terrorists’ (there has to be a pretty fine line between ‘terrorist’ and freedom fighter at the moment).

Now that America's fucked-up Iraq, it's about time they sneaked out of there, taking the 'news crews' with them, so no one has to think about what damage has been done, and you'll even get to blame the retreat on the Democrats, even though George wants to get the hell out of there (but has to pretend he's going to support Iraq)

And right about now JohnK will chime-in saying how Islam is hateful, and the mess america made of Iraq is not going to cause more terrorism, that it is just Islam's fault.

Anonymous said...

Za; Should I refer you to the intercepted "letter" written from Zarqawi to Bin Laden mwentioning that the only way to achieve victory is to start a civil war. Sectarian violence. Surly you are not that daft to see what is happening.
Except that the sectarian violence was going to happen anyway, and Zarqawi was not particlarly powerful on the ground.

Surely you are not that daft to forget the fact that the Sunnis had been oppressing the Shi'ites for decades, and that that would influence today?

Anonymous said...

Then; using common sense; WHY would Zarqawi write that they needed to plan and execute sectarian violence(Civil War) in order to succeed if it was going to happen anyway?

Anonymous said...

You're not seriously this stupid are you? This is spycraft 101 stuff.

It's called contingency planning. You work out all possible scenarios, however unlikely, and then act as if the worst (for you) is going to happen. Sectarian violence would be vital for Al Qaeda (regardless of how effective they wound up to be anyway), so even though it was highly probable to occur anyway, they'd still be working to make sure it did.

Anonymous said...

You obviously have not read the translation of the letter. No such mention of "contigency" planning but a scream for help and a plan needed to implement now.(At the time of the letter writing).

Anonymous said...

Note: To all readers under the age of 24.--

"Real Life" is not a video game.

Angus Diesel-Fumes said...

The only people conspired to plan anything leading to civil war was Bush and Rummsfeld. By invading (in the manner they did) destroying all instituitions, levels of government, social structure and infrastructure, they created the classic 'power vacuum'. When you have a power vacuum, and rival groups, civil war is inevitable. If Rummsfeld didn't know that, then he shouldn't have resigned, he shouldn't have had the job in the first place. That is a really basic mistake... I can't imagine how people thought it would happen anyother way?

I s'pose some people don't give these things a second thought, when it isn't there own lives they are playing with

Anonymous said...

John, I've read the letter - calling it a "scream for help" is wishful thinking.