Pakistan girl axed to death by her Muslim family

[Dan Clore]

Zeno wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:33:11 -0800 (PST), Allah666Satan
> <Allah666Satan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Huh, and I thought Islam was peaceful.....
>
> Read the Quran. It has a lot to say about killing Infidels. Muslims
> recite these Quranic sayings 5 times a day during their prays. In
> some sense, they are brainwashed and act as though they have blinders
> on when it comes to politics. Of course, they will tell you the exact
> opposite - that you have blinders on.

The Quran says, for example, that Muslims must not initiate aggression
against non-Muslims. (The quotations that sound like they encourage
killing infidels are taken out of context; they concern occasions when
Muslims were already at war with the non-believers in question.)

That's what you learn if you actually read the Quran. (Of course,
fundamentalist Muslims represent the Quran about as accurately as
fundamentalist Christians represent the Bible.)

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord We

 

[Zeno]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:58:12 -0800, Dan Clore
<clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:

>Zeno wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:33:11 -0800 (PST), Allah666Satan
>> <Allah666Satan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Huh, and I thought Islam was peaceful.....
>>
>> Read the Quran. It has a lot to say about killing Infidels. Muslims
>> recite these Quranic sayings 5 times a day during their prays. In
>> some sense, they are brainwashed and act as though they have blinders
>> on when it comes to politics. Of course, they will tell you the exact
>> opposite - that you have blinders on.
>
>The Quran says, for example, that Muslims must not initiate aggression
>against non-Muslims. (The quotations that sound like they encourage
>killing infidels are taken out of context; they concern occasions when
>Muslims were already at war with the non-believers in question.)

I don't think that is the Sunni interpretation.


>That's what you learn if you actually read the Quran. (Of course,
>fundamentalist Muslims represent the Quran about as accurately as
>fundamentalist Christians represent the Bible.)

And then there is (violent) "offensive jihad" Quran'ic interpretation.
Practiced by Sunni and conditionalized in Shia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_jihad

In the above link you will note the interpretations of Sayyid Qutb.
His book, Milestones, inspires al Qaeda and his criminal crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

Simply, Qutb interpretation is that muslims have been at war for
hundreds of years - non stop. The aggression "initiation" as you put
it occurred long ago.

 

[Allah666Satan]

On Nov 30, 4:07 pm, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 1:33 pm, Allah666Satan <Allah666Sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Huh, and I thought Islam was peaceful.....
>
> >http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14568914
>
> > Yet another 'honour killing' in Pakistan
>
> Just because Bush makes some claim does not mean it is so. If you
> thought Islam was a peaceful religion, then you are too easily
> influenced by what Bush says. Wake up: he is a liar.
>
> BLP

This topic has nothing to do with Bush. Clearly you are suffering
Bush Derangement Syndrome and should have a double dose of your
medication.

 

[Allah666Satan]

On Dec 1, 7:58 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> "V" <vf...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:92dc1c4f-803a-433d-b6fb-41c3325f41ef@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The muslin's march to the beat of a different drummer no doubt.
>
> It's the same same drummer to which the Christians march.
>
> > Any of the women that complain about their life in the US should go
> > live in a muslin country for a while.
>
> Or join a church.

What sort of nonsense is this?

Typical liberal deflection of the topic, which is Islam.

Since liberals don't want to talk about the bloody violence that a
Muslim family commited against a young girl, they change the subject
and bash America's #1 religion.

Way to show off your intelligence yet again, liberals!

 

[Allah666Satan]

On Nov 30, 6:17 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> "Allah666Satan" <Allah666Sa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c387f405-1054-413e-a77c-b307ad0017be@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Huh, and I thought Islam was peaceful.....
>
> It is.

REally? Islam is peaceful?

I really loved that peaceful act of hijacking planes and crashing them
into buildings. Now THAT's peaceful.

Oh, and how about kidnapping and beheading people? Yea, that's
peaceful.

How about a 30 man Muslim siege on an elementary school in Beslan,
Russia, where children were raped and murdered, bombs set off, and in
the end of the 3 days of hell, 350 people were dead? Yea that's
peaceful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWd1PG3RpI4

Or London 7/7/05? or Madrid Spain 3/11/04? or recent bombings in
Algeria, Morrocco, Somalia, Thailand, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Israel? All done by Muslims, in the name of Islam, the religion of
peace.

 

[Dan Clore]

Zeno wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 09:58:12 -0800, Dan Clore
> <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Zeno wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:33:11 -0800 (PST), Allah666Satan
>>> <Allah666Satan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Huh, and I thought Islam was peaceful.....
>>> Read the Quran. It has a lot to say about killing Infidels. Muslims
>>> recite these Quranic sayings 5 times a day during their prays. In
>>> some sense, they are brainwashed and act as though they have blinders
>>> on when it comes to politics. Of course, they will tell you the exact
>>> opposite - that you have blinders on.
>> The Quran says, for example, that Muslims must not initiate aggression
>> against non-Muslims. (The quotations that sound like they encourage
>> killing infidels are taken out of context; they concern occasions when
>> Muslims were already at war with the non-believers in question.)
>
> I don't think that is the Sunni interpretation.
>
>> That's what you learn if you actually read the Quran. (Of course,
>> fundamentalist Muslims represent the Quran about as accurately as
>> fundamentalist Christians represent the Bible.)
>
> And then there is (violent) "offensive jihad" Quran'ic interpretation.
> Practiced by Sunni and conditionalized in Shia.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_jihad
>
> In the above link you will note the interpretations of Sayyid Qutb.
> His book, Milestones, inspires al Qaeda and his criminal crew.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb
>
> Simply, Qutb interpretation is that muslims have been at war for
> hundreds of years - non stop. The aggression "initiation" as you put
> it occurred long ago.

Yup. That was my point with the reference to fundamentalists. Their
misrepresentations should be exposed, not propagated.

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord We

 

[Sanders Kaufman]

"Allah666Satan" <Allah666Satan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd433dc9-2fe3-420a-8768-0a8c72000500@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 30, 4:07 pm, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra...@msn.com> wrote:

>> Just because Bush makes some claim does not mean it is so. If you
>> thought Islam was a peaceful religion, then you are too easily
>> influenced by what Bush says. Wake up: he is a liar.
>>
>> BLP
>
> This topic has nothing to do with Bush. Clearly you are suffering
> Bush Derangement Syndrome and should have a double dose of your
> medication.

Bush says that Pakistan is our ally in the war agaisnt Islamic Terrorism.
This shows, yet again, that they are not against Islamic terrorism.

What's TRUELY deranged is your desire to anonymously defend Rev. Bush's
mistakes... like this one.

 

[Allah666Satan]

On Dec 5, 2:36 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:
> "Allah666Satan" <Allah666Sa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dd433dc9-2fe3-420a-8768-0a8c72000500@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 30, 4:07 pm, Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinpra...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> Just because Bush makes some claim does not mean it is so. If you
> >> thought Islam was a peaceful religion, then you are too easily
> >> influenced by what Bush says. Wake up: he is a liar.
>
> >> BLP
>
> > This topic has nothing to do with Bush. Clearly you are suffering
> > Bush Derangement Syndrome and should have a double dose of your
> > medication.
>
> Bush says that Pakistan is our ally in the war agaisnt Islamic Terrorism.
> This shows, yet again, that they are not against Islamic terrorism.
>
> What's TRUELY deranged is your desire to anonymously defend Rev. Bush's
> mistakes... like this one.

This isn't an act of terrorism, it is an Islamic honor killing of one
of their own.

So very very clearly, this has nothing to do with the Pakistani gov't
or with Bush. It is just one more example of Islam's violence, even
against their own.

 

[Sanders Kaufman]

"Allah666Satan" <Allah666Satan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc20127c-2d47-488e-8659-e71af410698a@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 5, 2:36 pm, "Sanders Kaufman" <bu...@kaufman.net> wrote:

>> What's TRUELY deranged is your desire to anonymously defend Rev. Bush's
>> mistakes... like this one.
>
> This isn't an act of terrorism, it is an Islamic honor killing of one
> of their own.

No more so than the US's death penalty is a "Christian" honor killing.


> So very very clearly, this has nothing to do with the Pakistani gov't
> or with Bush.

It only seems that way from the perspective of those of you who support the
death penalty on religious grounds


> It is just one more example of Islam's violence, even
> against their own.

Yeah - like how executing that Jewish couple during the cold war was an
example of Christian violence.
So what?

 

[James A. Donald]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:36:11 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman"
> Bush says that Pakistan is our ally in the war agaisnt
> Islamic Terrorism. This shows, yet again, that they
> are not against Islamic terrorism.

It is striking that we get a lot more grief from our
"allies" in the war than our enemies in the war: Most
foreign terrorist attacks on America originate from
Saudi Arabia, and bin Laden appears to be hiding out in
Pakistan. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, sponsored by official
enemy Iran, has not caused us all that much grief.

Who, you may well asks, is the major supplier of arms to
terrorists? The American government.

The weapons that Reagan sent to Afghanistan did not go
astray, contrary to the myth about bin Laden being
supported by the CIA, but the arms provided to the Iraqi
"government" and the Palestinian Authority are going
astray.



--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

 

[brique]

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:s1iel3tgid2qd60449aep6j2trqmuumv00@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 13:36:11 -0600, "Sanders Kaufman"
> > Bush says that Pakistan is our ally in the war agaisnt
> > Islamic Terrorism. This shows, yet again, that they
> > are not against Islamic terrorism.
>
> It is striking that we get a lot more grief from our
> "allies" in the war than our enemies in the war: Most
> foreign terrorist attacks on America originate from
> Saudi Arabia, and bin Laden appears to be hiding out in
> Pakistan. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, sponsored by official
> enemy Iran, has not caused us all that much grief.
>
> Who, you may well asks, is the major supplier of arms to
> terrorists? The American government.
>
> The weapons that Reagan sent to Afghanistan did not go
> astray, contrary to the myth about bin Laden being
> supported by the CIA, but the arms provided to the Iraqi
> "government" and the Palestinian Authority are going
> astray.

Retrospective tosh, James...... what about the Sidewinders still unaccounted
for despite a massive effort to locate and retrieve them after the Russians
headed back home? Even offering cash bounties for their return didn't work.
Besides which, Afghanistan and Pakistan have had their own back-yard based
arms industry for decades (there were reports the Russian soldiers prefered
the Afghan AK's to their own, better made, they said), what was imported was
the hi-tech stuff, radios, comms gear, and, of course, those Sidewinders.
All of which was very nice but the biggest contribution was the training,
the knowing how to use the guns, rather than the guns themselves of which
there has never been a lack in that region of the world.

And whilst Bin Laden himself may never have sat in a CIA-funded classroom,
the pool of men he recruited from certainly did. You just called them
'peshmerga' then, and you call them 'Taliban ' now.

>

 

[James A. Donald]

James A. Donald
> > The weapons that Reagan sent to Afghanistan did not
> > go astray, contrary to the myth about bin Laden
> > being supported by the CIA, but the arms provided to
> > the Iraqi "government" and the Palestinian Authority
> > are going astray.

"brique"
> Retrospective tosh, James...... what about the
> Sidewinders still unaccounted for despite a massive
> effort to locate and retrieve them after the Russians
> headed back home?

Not one sidewinder has ever been used against us. The
weapons supplied to the Iraqi government are being
used against us.

> Even offering cash bounties for their return didn't
> work.

Probably used up, and unreported. The holy warriors did
not keep records.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

 

[brique]

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:fv3fl3dibsafnb94ij7b71nlakmnearm64@4ax.com...
> James A. Donald
> > > The weapons that Reagan sent to Afghanistan did not
> > > go astray, contrary to the myth about bin Laden
> > > being supported by the CIA, but the arms provided to
> > > the Iraqi "government" and the Palestinian Authority
> > > are going astray.
>
> "brique"
> > Retrospective tosh, James...... what about the
> > Sidewinders still unaccounted for despite a massive
> > effort to locate and retrieve them after the Russians
> > headed back home?
>
> Not one sidewinder has ever been used against us. The
> weapons supplied to the Iraqi government are being
> used against us.

But that was not what you said, you said " The weapons that Reagan sent to
Afghanistan did not
go astray," But they did, some 600 Sidewinders went astray and the CIA
spent lots of time and money trying to un-astray them.

>
> > Even offering cash bounties for their return didn't
> > work.
>
> Probably used up, and unreported. The holy warriors did
> not keep records.

But the CIA did, and they reckoned 600 Sidewinders were not fired at the
Godless Infidel Russkies and, consequently, the CIA made great expensive,
and fruitless, efforts to retrieve said 600 Sidewinders.

 

[James A. Donald]

James A. Donald
> > > > The weapons that Reagan sent to Afghanistan did
> > > > not go astray, contrary to the myth about bin
> > > > Laden being supported by the CIA, but the arms
> > > > provided to the Iraqi "government" and the
> > > > Palestinian Authority are going astray.

"brique"
> > > Retrospective tosh, James...... what about the
> > > Sidewinders still unaccounted for despite a
> > > massive effort to locate and retrieve them after
> > > the Russians headed back home?

> > Not one sidewinder has ever been used against us.
> > The weapons supplied to the Iraqi government are
> > being used against us.

> But that was not what you said, you said " The weapons
> that Reagan sent to Afghanistan did not
> go astray," But they did, some 600 Sidewinders went
> astray

They went into the hands of people who used them against
our enemies but declined to keep records that could be
used subsequently hang them. That is not "astray".

"Astray" is when the US government sends weapons to the
Iraqi government, only to subsequently discover that
the Iraqi government is still mysteriously short of
weapons.

If the US had sent the holy warriors anti air missiles,
only to find that Soviet aircraft were mysteriously
staying up, then that would be "astray". Instead,
Soviet aircraft went down - and our aircraft stayed up.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

 

[Sanders Kaufman]

"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:5hogl3pef3u1jnusd15okh109v3hl07d8f@4ax.com...
> James A. Donald

>> But that was not what you said, you said " The weapons
>> that Reagan sent to Afghanistan did not
>> go astray," But they did, some 600 Sidewinders went
>> astray
>
> They went into the hands of people who used them against
> our enemies but declined to keep records that could be
> used subsequently hang them. That is not "astray".

So you're going to believe a guy who misplaced rocket-bombs, when he says
that even though he has no records, you should take his word of honor that
when he lost them, he lost them responsibly ?

 

[brique]

Sanders Kaufman <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
newsr36j.51920$eY.50545@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:5hogl3pef3u1jnusd15okh109v3hl07d8f@4ax.com...
> > James A. Donald
>
> >> But that was not what you said, you said " The weapons
> >> that Reagan sent to Afghanistan did not
> >> go astray," But they did, some 600 Sidewinders went
> >> astray
> >
> > They went into the hands of people who used them against
> > our enemies but declined to keep records that could be
> > used subsequently hang them. That is not "astray".
>
> So you're going to believe a guy who misplaced rocket-bombs, when he
says
> that even though he has no records, you should take his word of honor that
> when he lost them, he lost them responsibly ?
>

James does have a sense of humour after all.......

>

 

[James A. Donald]

On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:52:15 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
> So you're going to believe a guy who misplaced rocket-bombs, when he says
> that even though he has no records, you should take his word of honor that
> when he lost them, he lost them responsibly ?

Holy warriors are not government bureaucrats. It is absurd to ask
them to keep records - particularly when any such records could well
be used to hang them if future political developments go badly - as
they are indeed going right now in Afghanistan.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

 

[brique]

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:jc4jl35s8818dv0magqf3gim2g71udpidd@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 03:52:15 GMT, "Sanders Kaufman"
> > So you're going to believe a guy who misplaced rocket-bombs, when he
says
> > that even though he has no records, you should take his word of honor
that
> > when he lost them, he lost them responsibly ?
>
> Holy warriors are not government bureaucrats. It is absurd to ask
> them to keep records - particularly when any such records could well
> be used to hang them if future political developments go badly - as
> they are indeed going right now in Afghanistan.

But the CIA kept records, James. they didn't hand out stuff like candy, it
went to selected groups who had been trained, who were felt to be reliable
(in military terms) and who would be de-briefed on their return to their
Pakistani bases. And at the end, it was the CIA who calculated that 600 or
so missiles were unaccounted for, that is, were not fired at the enemy nor
returned to them, unused.

I suppose if any records may go badly for anybody, it will be just how many
of the current oppositional groups in Afghanistan got their training in
those non-existent camps in Pakistan. For you must remember, James, it was
not just a matter of handing out AK's and grenades, these guys were trained
in use of arms, improvised explosives, ambush techniques, how to combat
armour, air power, intelligence gathering, analysis, etc, etc.

As for the 'holy warriors' being concerned over 'future developments', don't
talk bollocks, James. In Afghanistan clans have switched allegiance from
side to side twice a week and nobody thinks any the more of it. Half the
current 'Government forces' used to be 'Taliban' and before that
pro-Russian, anti-russian, whatever. That's normal Afghani politics, all
that is of concern is who you support today and are they the winning side?
If not, switch and try not to get trampled in the rush as everyone else
does..

 

[James A. Donald]

"brique"
> But the CIA kept records, James. they didn't hand out stuff like candy, it
> went to selected groups who had been trained, who were felt to be reliable
> (in military terms) and who would be de-briefed on their return to their
> Pakistani bases. And at the end, it was the CIA who calculated that 600 or
> so missiles were unaccounted for, that is, were not fired at the enemy nor
> returned to them, unused.

If one hands stuff out to holly warriors, they are not going to return
it, nor tell one precisely what they did with it.

Any attempt to keep precise account of what happened to the missiles
was ridiculous.

We know those missiles did not go astray, because lots of Soviet
planes went down, and our planes did not.



--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald

 

[brique]

James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:rc0kl3p71o1def79ogtkhssuattenbn1d6@4ax.com...
> "brique"
> > But the CIA kept records, James. they didn't hand out stuff like candy,
it
> > went to selected groups who had been trained, who were felt to be
reliable
> > (in military terms) and who would be de-briefed on their return to their
> > Pakistani bases. And at the end, it was the CIA who calculated that 600
or
> > so missiles were unaccounted for, that is, were not fired at the enemy
nor
> > returned to them, unused.
>
> If one hands stuff out to holly warriors, they are not going to return
> it, nor tell one precisely what they did with it.

Perhaps you should do a bit of research into how the CIA operated in
Pakistan at the time, James.

>
> Any attempt to keep precise account of what happened to the missiles
> was ridiculous.

On the contrary, valuable assets like that were not just passed around, the
group using them had to be trained in their use and combat data fed back
into the training program (such as the vulnerability of the engine intakes
on the Hind). The CIA knew who had been given the weapons, where they would
be operating and, through the payment of bounties for successful missions,
knew damn well when that group returned and could match up tales of glory
with intelligence from the usual sources, human and electronic.

>
> We know those missiles did not go astray, because lots of Soviet
> planes went down, and our planes did not.

Really, you have intimate access to all the investigations into air asset
losses in Afghanistan? After all, we should not expect any administartion to
deny or obscure that it was losing planes and choppers to its own
technology, should we?