December 27, 2006
Reuters via WaPo: But a senior Taliban commander who declined to be identified confirmed Osmani had been killed.Hurry brave mujahadbeens, run to Iraq, the Jihad needs you!. No wait, run to Afghanistan, the jihad needs you! No wait, run to Somalia the African Taliban of Losers needs you! Rather than shiver with nervousness over the fact that freedom is fighing on multiple fronts, think about what this means to the Islamists. They are much less capable of sustaining three fronts. Sure they can kill innocents and make trouble like they always do, but that is about it. What little actual power they have is very fragile."He has died. We got this information on the day of the strike but our leadership ordered us not to disclose it," the commander, speaking by telephone, told a Reuters reporter in the Pakistani border town of Chaman.
"He was not only an experienced military commander but also good in making financial transactions for us. He had good contacts," he said, without elaborating.
"His death will have some bad impact on our movement for some time," he added.
Posted by: Howie at
01:14 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 1 kb.
Maybe allah was the one who fingered his position to the infidels.
Let me guess, no virgins either.
Posted by: Fred Fry at December 27, 2006 03:02 PM (JXdhy)
The power of stateless Islamic terrorists is always slight. It is Sharia states, combined with the state financed terror that poses the more serious threat in my opinion.
Iran, Indonesia (is there really any doubt), Pakistan (if we arent watchful), and my all time favorite 'Great Satan' Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's are the ones I'm most upset with. I believe they are the worst exporters of 'hate' ideology.
I'm still waiting for a standard method to seperate 'moderates' from enemies. I think we should make a list of minimum requirements that establish a Muslim, as being moderate by an acceptable measure. Maybe we can have a post dedicated to just that discussion?
Happy New Year.
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at December 27, 2006 05:19 PM (2OHpj)
How about "Do you support the initiation of force against others?"
Some will lie. But then, if they later do commit violence, we have evidence of their failings either way. Getting individuals on the record as denying the politics of force commits them, and removes the subsequent endless yammering.
Posted by: a reader at December 27, 2006 06:40 PM (fJcsd)
A moderate Muslim is one who would fine or jail you for sharia law infractions rather than kill you. A Hobson's choice at best. Almost all Muslims I have ever known would like to see Sharia Law instituted worldwide.
As you might expect, the fate of non-Muslims is always dependant on the ruler at hand in the Islamic system, and one who is brutal is likely to kill with impunity. So it is with Sharia Law. It provides for just that eventuality. You're screwed if you are a non-Muslim.
Posted by: templar knight at December 27, 2006 07:22 PM (634o6)
I guess Osmani didn't get the news.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at December 28, 2006 12:50 AM (abVz3)
Posted by: Greyrooster at December 28, 2006 01:55 PM (MItWF)
34 queries taking 0.1116 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
