jawa.mee.nu

October 26, 2006

Muhammad Cartoon Case Dismissed

Finally, strike a blow for freedom.

Times Online: A Danish court has thrown out a defamation case against the newspaper that first published controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
The City Court in Aarhus today rejected a lawsuit brought by seven Danish Muslim groups claiming that the 12 drawings printed in Jyllands-Posten were intended to insult the prophet and make a mockery of Islam.
While the cartoons may have offended some Muslims, there was no basis for claiming that the newspaper sought to belittle their faith, the court said.
Carsten Juste, Jyllands-Postenâ€™s editor-in-chief, hailed the decision as a victory for free speech. "Anything but a pure acquittal would have been a disaster for press freedom and the media's possibility to fulfill itâ€™s duties in a democratic society," he said.
The Muslim groups behind the lawsuit said they would appeal.

So to use Michelleâ€™s term "the religion of perpetual outrage" will continue to whine about the cartoons. The truth does hurt but rather than face the issues that inspired the cartoons they seek to suppress that which hurts their pride: The truth.

Posted by: Howie at 09:10 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Tonight's forecasts calls for light seething and a possibilty of scattered riots. Everyone should probably take an umbrella with them as it may just hit the fan.

Posted by: JeepThang at October 26, 2006 10:38 AM (yZQoS)

2 We have a winner in the shockingly poor taste categoryâ€¦
Of course, the muslims are to blame. They are ruining our culture.

British companyâ€™s â€œtoyâ€ sexualizes children. Coming to a store near you.

"Tesco has been forced to remove a pole-dancing kit from the toys and games section of its website after it was accused of "destroying children's innocence".
The Tesco Direct site advertises the kit with the words, "Unleash the sex kitten inside...simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go!
The Â£49.97 kit comprises a chrome pole extendible to 8ft 6ins, a 'sexy dance garter' and a DVD demonstrating suggestive dance moves."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=412195&in_page_id=17

Posted by: Greg at October 26, 2006 10:43 AM (/+dAV)

3 Greg, just because something is tasteless, and that certainly is, I would not exactly call Islam the solution to our problems. Go to the latest post and defend the bastards, if you dare.

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 26, 2006 11:04 AM (rUyw4)

4 Hats off the judge(s)!
Finally judge(s) with clarity to see the simple truth.
Sadly we recently had a judicial setback here is Canada.
I'll try and find a published article on it and send the info by e-mail.
/GM

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 26, 2006 01:19 PM (vixLB)

5 Coming in late again, it seems to me Greg may be onto something. Islam would remove the choice we have to make between being horrified, amused, indifferent, or homicidally outraged!

Was that the point ...?

Posted by: Michael Weaver at October 28, 2006 01:43 AM (2OHpj)

HOW TO BECOME RICH HOW TO TURN SIX DOLLARS INTO MILLIONS OF DOLLARS: READING THIS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE! IT DOES WORK! I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it.
So I thought, "Yeah right, this must be a scam", but like most of us, I was curious, so I kept reading. Anyway, it said that you send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address stated in the article. You then place your own name and address in the bottom of the list at #6, and post the article in at least 250 newsgroups. (There are thousands) No catch, that was it. So after thinking it overI thought about trying it. I figured: "what have I got to lose except 6 stamps and $6.00, right?" Then I invested the measly $6.00 (I use the word "measly" because $6 really is measly compared to the money I have made through the initial investment). Well GUESS WHAT!?... within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail! I was shocked! I figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in. In my first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I had made a total of over $1,000! In the third week I had over $10,000 and it's still growing. This is now my fourth week and I have made a total of just over $42,000 and it's still coming in rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps, I have spent more than that on the lottery!! NOTE: Please follow these directions EXACTLY, and $50,000 or more can be yours in 20 to 60 days. This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the participants.STEP 1:

: Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on each piece of paper "PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST."Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses:

:1.. AJ Armbrust3731 Grand AvenueDuluth, MN 55807

2.Steve Wehvila3155 Vernon St.Duluth, MN 55806

3.James Rush621QueenAvenueMinneapolis,MN55411

4.Liz Grice 3413 Harvard ave. Columbia, SC 29205

5.Eng. Yousef Abu Hadhoud P.O. Box 4028 North Hashemi, Amman - Jordan

6.Juliet Barriola 225 west 232cd street apt.2E Bronx, New York 10463

STEP 2:

: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR Name as number 6 on the list.
STEP 3:

: Change anything you need to, but try to keep this article as close to original as possible. Now, post your amended article to at least 250 newsgroups You won't get very much unless you post like crazy. PLEASE REMEMBER that this program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the participants and by their carefully adhering to the directions. So, as each post is downloaded and the directions carefully followed, six members will be reimbursed for their participation as a List Developer with one dollar each. Your name will move up the list geometrically so that when your name reaches the #1 position you will be receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in CASH!!! What an opportunity for only $6.00 ($1.00 for each of the first six people listed above) Send it now, add your own name to the list and you're in business!
Out of 250 postings, say I receive only 5 replies (a very low example). So then I made $5.00 with my name at #6 on the letter. Now, each of the 5 persons who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 250 postings, each with my name at #5 and only 5 persons respond to each of the original 5, that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25 each make 250 MINIMUM posts with my name at #4 and only 5 replies each, I will bring in an additional $125! Now, those 125 persons turn around and post the MINIMUM 250 with my name at #3 and only receive 5 replies each, I will make an additional $626! OK, now here is the fun part, each of those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 250 letters with my name at #2 and they each only receive 5 replies, that just made me $3,1250!!!

Posted by: JANE123** at November 01, 2006 10:58 AM (INxhg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 25, 2006

al-Qaeda Orientation

Hat Tip: Herroyalwhyness.

Posted by: Howie at 10:52 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 5 words, total size 1 kb.

October 20, 2006

Fatwa Issued Against...

...The Daily Star for being a bunch of pussies.

News Independent UK:A staff revolt at the Daily Star prevented publication of a spoof Islamic version of the paper called the "Daily Fatwa".
Muslim commentators said yesterday that the newspaper's attempt on Monday evening to mock Sharia law could have sparked international protests similar to those that followed publication by a Danish newspaper of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
The mock-up "Daily Fatwa", which promised a "Page 3 Burkha Babes Special" and competitions to "Burn a Flag and Win a Corsa" and "Win hooks just like Hamza's", was prepared to run as page 6 in Wednesday's edition of the Daily Star, one of the stable of newspapers owned by publisher Richard Desmond.
The page also included a spoof leader column under the headline "Allah is Great" but left blank save for a stamp with the word "Censored".
But shortly before the Star was due to go to press on Tuesday evening, concerned members of the National of Journalists (NUJ) called an emergency meeting in the 9th floor canteen of Desmond's Northern & Shell building beside the River Thames.
After 25 minutes, the NUJ chapel passed a motion saying that the article was "deliberately offensive" to Muslims.
The motion read: "The chapel fears that this editorial content poses a very serious risk of violent and dangerous reprisals from religious fanatics who may take offence at these articles. This may place the staff in great jeopardy. This chapel urges the management to remove the content immediately."

Given that most people like their heads attatched to their body it is understandable. A mistake though, no community should be above being made fun of due to threats of violence. Note the recent cartoon contests in Iran as an example of Muslim hypocrisy on this issue.

Ht Tip : LGF Who adds a link to National Union of Chickenshitsâ€™ website.

Posted by: Howie at 08:06 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

October 15, 2006

Put Another Log On The Fire

My latest salvo in the anti-jihad YouTube crusade.

I'm going to just link the vids I do, because I'm too damned lazy to re-size them to fit the page here.

Lyrics below the fold. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:02 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I was feeling a great amount of contempt towards bloodthirsty, throat-slashing, honor-killing, misogynistic Mohammedans this morning.

Thank you for the catharsis.

As a real hater of the political side of Islam, sometimes I am actually grateful for CAIR. I think CAIR reinforces the perception that politically-active Muslims in western countries are dishonest. It would be helpful to the cause of the average ROPer if CAIR was forthright and contrite and actually apologized on behalf of Islam, and admitted that Islam needs to purge the sadists.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party needs to purge the masochists. Democrats and Islamists may get off on each other, but they are a bad combination for the United States.

Posted by: Darth Vag at October 16, 2006 06:59 AM (HSkSw)

2 Excellent Vag. Everyone has his 15 minutes.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 07:05 AM (syuk5)

3 19 million Muslims for jihad
...and that's just in Indonesia

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006121.htm

Posted by: Darth Vag at October 16, 2006 07:07 AM (HSkSw)

4 What's with the Vinnie B. DeMille stuff?

DeMille sounds FRENCH.

http://www.mohicanpress.com/sounds/latinate.wav

Posted by: Darth Vag at October 16, 2006 07:20 AM (HSkSw)

5 Vinnie loves the French. Its a bird of a feather thing.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 08:19 AM (syuk5)

6 It isn't just the terrorists that are giving islam a bad name.. even the regular people are chipping in nowadays.
"(muslim family in Australia) father kills mother because daughter wants to become Christian."

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

Posted by: JeepThang at October 16, 2006 09:56 AM (yZQoS)

7 True. It's stranger than fiction.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 11:24 AM (syuk5)

8 But then again, perhaps he hated his wife and needed an excuse. Hummm. Wrong country for that. This stupid wife killing muslim didn't have enough brains to take her on vacation to Pakistan and do it there. After he did his prison sentence of 14 days he could have returned to Aussie land. Dumb ass.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 11:55 AM (syuk5)

9 Rooster, that was exactly as I was thinking. The guy probably hated his wife anyhow ( after all she was a devout muslim ) and used a good excuse to do her in and get her out of his life. As for why he wasn't smarter? That is not in their makeup. They only know how to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation and commit murder and mayhem. Don't be too sad, though. On the bright side it is 1 less muslim, and I am assuming his christian daughter is still alive, at least for the time being. Let's see what tommorrow's headlines say.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at October 16, 2006 03:17 PM (Dd86v)

10 Tommorrows headline. Brothers kill sister for dating non-muslim. Diffinately a honor killing.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 16, 2006 03:53 PM (TLJ7a)

11 The edgiest counter-Jihadist video yet :-)
Good job Vinnie :-)

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at October 16, 2006 03:57 PM (vixLB)

12 Hey! The families honor was at stake here. This poor man saved his daughter from the depraved Christian Crusaders.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 17, 2006 03:32 PM (Igoub)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 11, 2006

Shake Your Moviemaker

Ragnar is right, there is an online war being conducted.

Getting jihad videos pulled is entertaining, but making your own is way more fun.

Here's my latest counter-propaganda effort. Mostly safe for work.

I rather like that one, I don't want it pulled. Which means it probably will be.

If you like it, I hope you link rather than embed, but, beggars can't be choosers.

If you don't like it, well, I guess you just haven't had your lithium yet.

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:28 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Cube Worshippers Offended By Cube

They claim they donâ€™t worship Idols. But replicate their cube and they get all hissy about it.

Mermi:On October 10, 2006, an Islamic website posted a message alerting Muslims to what it claims is a new insult to Islam. According to the message, the cube-shaped building which is being constructed in New York City, on Fifth Avenue between 58th and 59th Streets in midtown Manhattan, is clearly meant to provoke Muslims. The fact that the building resembles the Kaâ€™ba, is called â€œApple Mecca,â€ is intended to be open 24 hours a day like the Kaâ€™ba, and moreover, contains bars selling alcoholic beverages, constitutes a blatant insult to Islam. The message urges Muslims to spread this alert, in hope that â€œMuslims will be able to stop the project.â€

More here from The Register:

Well, it resembles the Muslims' sacred Ka'ba, situated in the Masjid al-Haram mosque in Mecca:
The "Islamic website" claims that since the offending structure is known as the "Apple Mecca", and "contains bars selling alcoholic beverages", it constitutes "a blatant insult to Islam". The site accordingly calls on Muslims to spread the word in the hope that "Muslims will be able to stop the project".

Hat tip : LGF.

The Apple Cube they find offensive.

The actual cube in the center of Mecca that they bow toward.

Update: There is no Cube, but Cube...... more...

Posted by: Howie at 01:55 PM | Comments (57) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Muhammad Loves Mambo

And James Brown too.

Come on Muslim Brothers, Get up offa that thing.

Hat Tip: Mark. more...

Posted by: Howie at 12:08 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

October 05, 2006

Take Yer Jihad And Shove It!

The fellow who took over leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq from Z-man recently issued an offer of "amnesty" to the Sunnis in Anbar, who just haven't been very nice to him. Said "traitors" had until the end of Ramadan to respond to this magnanimous offer/threat, but they decided to waive the time, and respond right away. Mudville Gazette has the full story, but the following Iraqi Shaykh became downright abusive with his irony:

Asked about his response to Al-Muhajir's statement about giving a pardon to the chieftains of Iraq, he [Shaykh Abd al-Sattar Abu-Rishah] says: "I do not know what kind of authority he enjoys. Is he a prophet? Did he receive a messenger from God to give us a pardon? Are we criminals like him? Are we killers like him to be given a pardon? Or did we ask him for pardon? On the contrary, he should ask us for pardon, because he killed Iraqis, Sunnis and Shi'is. Who is he? He is only an inferior criminal. We should not grant him a pardon."

And there's also this, from another Shaykh:

Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, who stole chickens in 1980, is now issuing pardons for chieftains? Who is he to pardon the Chieftains of Iraq?

Oh woe is us; what are we to do? All is lost. Another Vietnam, fershure.

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:48 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

October 01, 2006

Muhammad Bobbleheads Brought to You by...

The Jawa Report. Not really, but we wish.

NY Daily News: A ceramic bobblehead doll of the Prophet Muhammed - created to resemble the infamous caricature published by a Danish newspaper - is being hawked online for $22.99 a pop by an ex-Marine.
The unapologetic creator, Timothy Ames, 28, said the bobblehead is similar to "dashboard Jesus" figurines that can be stuck with adhesive to flat surfaces. "I thought, 'If they flipped out over some cartoons what will they do with a dashboard Muhammed?'" Ames said from his home in Hawaii.
But Islamic experts are not amused, saying the bobbleheads could anger Muslims, whose religion strictly prohibits depictions of the prophet.
"No depiction of the prophet, even if it is positive, should be made ever - and certainly not one as ridiculous as the bobblehead Muhammed," said Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, an assistant professor at New York University. "I don't think it's about freedom of speech. This is the freedom to insult, which he shouldn't be doing."

Get yer bobblehead Muhammads here!!!!! Just in time for this Christmas Season! The perfect gift for the infidel in your life!

Yes we here at the Jawa are happy to help out. I hope he gets rich. Fatwa?

Via Malkin.

Hat Tip: Larwyn.

I think this article is huge. It reveals the mindset of the Danish Islamist "cleric" who helped stir the ruckus over the cartoons of Mohammed. Please take a look at this article from the Guardian.

Posted by: Howie at 09:05 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

September 30, 2006

Jawa Report Insomniac Comedy Theater

Stein host: All the Sandcrawler members who sent this in. We heart you.

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:10 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

September 19, 2006

P-Shop My Pope, Will You?

Ooooh, I'm so offended. I may yawn and scratch my balls after seeing that one.

That is, if I'm not busy drinking beer, eating pork products, and letting my wife out of the house by herself.

Well, hell, let's start this religious war right here and now.

I mean, lets rekindle.

No, that's not right either.

Okay, I'll just fire off my own sucky photoshop in response.

Please note, Allah is not my God. Al' lah was the name of the pagan Arab's moon god. Which Mohammed appropriated in his efforts to gain converts before he had the military strength to kill them if they didn't convert to Islam.

Therefore, any attempts to claim that I'm blaspheming God with this crappy p-shop is rendered moot.

At any rate, I think it's ridiculous that I have to offer up these thoughts. Since God can see into my heart, I think He knows that I'm not visualizing Him this way.

Just Allah and Mohammed. The former a fictional character, the latter with a current address in Hell.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:31 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

September 18, 2006

Cube Worshippers Declare Jihad Against Christians

Two Islamic Militant Groups The Mujahdeen Shura Council and , Ansar al-Sunnah have declared open war on Christians. First they insult Christians by describing them as, â€œcross worshippers.â€ This is an accusation of idolatry.

Times Online UK:Today an internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraqâ€™s branch of al Qaeda, threatened reprisals against "worshippers of the cross" for the Pope's remarks.
"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... (you will have no choice but) Islam or death," said the statement, citing a hadith (saying of the Prophet Mohammed) promising Muslims that they would "conquer Rome... as they conquered Constantinople".
"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya. God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the Mujahideen."
As usual with such statements, the authenticity could not be verified. It was posted on an internet site often used by al-Qaeda and other militant groups. It continued: "The Pope in the Vatican turns in the orbit of Bush. His remarks form part of the mobilisation for a crusade announced by Bush, to raise the morale of the crusader armies."
Two other armed groups in Iraq, Jaish al-Mujahedeen (the Mujahedeenâ€™s Army) and Asaeb al-Iraq al-Jihadiya (League of Jihadists in Iraq), have already threatened the Vatican with reprisals in statements posted on Islamist internet websites.
Another militant group in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunnah, today also vowed to fight Christians in retaliation.
"You will only see our swords until you go back to Godâ€™s true faith Islam," it said in a separate statement, which called the Pope "Satanâ€™s hellhound in the Vatican", saying he was "proud today of his hatred towards Muslims".
"The day is coming when the armies of Islam will destroy the ramparts of Rome," it added in the statement addressed to "Crusaders".

Iâ€™ll ignore the insult, calling me a cross worshipper. I mean what weight can that have coming from a bunch of guys who bow to a giant cube five times a day?

Islamic rulers in the past have forced Jews to wear small cows around their neck to remind them of the Golden Calf episode from the Old Testament. However it appears they did not learn the lesson very well as they are still bowing to a giant cube in the center of Mecca. Itâ€™s not that shape of the idol that matters.

I'm also offended by the claim I read the other day that if Jesus returned tomorrow he would be a Muslim. I can think of nothing more Anti-Christ than Muhammad's teachings. I find it an insult to Jesus.

Of course the followers of the religion of peace do have one solution to my faith. Kill me. more...

Posted by: Howie at 09:31 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 489 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Go Howie, Go !!!!!!!

Hey anybody taking bets as to what's really inside that cube?

Posted by: memphis761 at September 18, 2006 10:25 AM (D3+20)

2 Oh, bring it on, bring it on! Dubya is visiting the UN this morning, and there is nothing I would like to hear more than for him to respond to this with a "formal declaration of war" on Islamotards. I know, I know, we supposedly have been at war, in spirit, due to the GWOT, but seems to me we need a formal response, in a world court setting, to this latest outrageous demonstration from the "Religion on Peace"^TM.There needs to be a formal response to calls for the Pope's execution by the Mujahadeen Retard Council, or whatever they are called.

Let's get it on!

Posted by: EricInTexas at September 18, 2006 10:26 AM (S6LwU)

3 Islam or death...

Of course they mean this in a peaceful, instrospective sort of way. People here love to jump on me for calling for the extermination of muslims, but those are their conditions, not mine; if we don't exterminate them they will exterminate us, and they are very clear on that point.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 18, 2006 10:34 AM (v3I+x)

4 If you pull the sheets away fron the cube you will see eight sides of different colors that when scrambled makes for a challenging puzzle.

Again, someone needs to explain to these idiots that Constantinope, and Rome already fell. The Pope lives in the Vatican City, is Catholic, and Bush is not.

BTW Islamotards, I am building a sandcastle Vatican City in my front yard. Feel free to come by any time a destroy it. Pay no attention to the large frothing dog hiding behind the Shrubbery!

NEE!

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 18, 2006 10:40 AM (7teJ9)

5 Yes, IM, nothing more peaceful and introspective than having your head sawed off with a dull butcher knife. Of course, it's for your own good, right?

SeeMonk, your shrubbery - something nice, I take it, not too expensive? Let me know if any sheet heads show up; IM and I will stop by and help you "fart in their general direction"...

Posted by: EricInTexas at September 18, 2006 10:48 AM (S6LwU)

6 The cube is a giant "continuum transfunctioner" that will jettison all the Islamotards in a spaceship to Allah for their eternal vacation paradise in the lake of fire (72 hot chicks giving oral pleasure not included).

I had some Muslim try to tell me today that it wasn't Jesus that was on the cross but someone Allah made to look like Jesus. I laughed and told him if that is true then Allah's deception is responsible for the creation and growth of about 2 billion (counting up all the Catholics and Protestants)followers of Jesus Christ. How do you like them apples goatdiddler? He surprisingly didn't have a comeback. That's right Buckwheat, Allah created Christianity if what Muhammad said is true. He's probably still processing that one. What do you expect from someone who faces and prays towards a black rock in a box five times a day?

Posted by: Stan the Infidel in Indonesia at September 18, 2006 11:04 AM (8bR3f)

7 It is a space rock not an idol. Idolitry is against islam. And if you claim otherwise the devil will do meatballs with your bodies. Yes Eric, I will let you know if I have any visitors. Can't keep the cats out right now. Who would have thought cats were muslim.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 18, 2006 11:33 AM (7teJ9)

This guy might have guess the kitty's are Muslime

Posted by: Howie at September 18, 2006 11:40 AM (YdcZ0)

9 IM: the way I see it, the choice is really: death, or DEATH. There's nothing living in islam. It's a death cult all the way, both for themselves and the rest of us.

Posted by: n.a. palm at September 18, 2006 11:58 AM (CWQzg)

10 As concerning the cube they worship: It's a big Mohammed-In-The-Box. There's a hand-crank on the back, if they will bother to look. Crank it a few times and a Mohammed doll with spring out with a message, "I was just kidding about the Quran-Islam-Allah-Jihad thing. Ha ha."

Allahtuv people have been fooled.

There is nothing new under the sun. Christ said that as they persecuted Him, they would persecute those that followed Him...and so it has been for 2,000 years...and so it will be until He returns. But be not deceived, God is not mocked. Whatever a person sews, he will also reap.

Posted by: Cruci-Fide at September 18, 2006 01:15 PM (xdG5W)

11 And the liberal left-wing news media as well as the hollywood left and the ACLU have also declared war on christains to

Posted by: sandpiper at September 18, 2006 01:21 PM (PObDu)

12 My question is will the Pope give in and beg forgiveness. An act that will show the muslims that Catholics are afraid of them.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 18, 2006 02:45 PM (Ku/0k)

13 Yes. I am calling upon the Muslim world to apologize for the inflamitory remarks.

Well... I am waiting.... still waiting.... still... zzzzzzz.

(wake me up when it comes)

Posted by: Conservative Culture at September 18, 2006 02:54 PM (HCXH7)

14 Yeah Greyrooster, I'm afraid so. He already said he's sorry that it made the scumbags so angry. Already buckling and back-pedaling. A bishop with balls would simply call them as he sees 'em and give no apologies for their wanton behavior. Essentially the Pope backpedaled like Bush did over the Danish Muhammed cartoons.

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 18, 2006 03:05 PM (Dd86v)

15 Nice post Howie, and cool sign.

I can see my future as follows: Mr. Jarhead, why did you destroy all those moon god worshippers that declared war on you? Well Sir, herrrrrreee's your sign.

Posted by: Leatherneck at September 18, 2006 04:16 PM (D2g/j)

16 HERE!! HERE!!
your spot on....I WILL NOT SUBMIT..try to cut my head off....by the end of my .223 and other assorted fun and games....bring it on islime....bite me!!

Posted by: one take jake at September 18, 2006 05:35 PM (7AmLP)

17 They grovel to a meteorite. 'Nuf said.

Posted by: Stormcleaver at September 18, 2006 06:07 PM (jIXSy)

18 Word up.

Posted by: Leatherneck at September 18, 2006 06:20 PM (D2g/j)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 16, 2006

Pope Offers Non-Apology, Muslims Seethe, Whine, Kill

Reason number 2,084 to respect Pope Benedict XVI:

In a speech Tuesday, Pope Benedict quoted Byzantine emperor Manuel II:

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

And true to form, adherents of the Religion of Peaceâ„¢ around the world reacted with veiled threats that they may respond with violence. How predictable can they be?

Demands that the Pope apologize followed, and I was dismayed at this morning's headlines that suggested that the Pope capitulated. But read these stories closely, as they all essentially report the same thing:

Pope Benedict XVI "sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful ..."

Note that the Pontiff did not recant any of his words, he merely is sorry that Muslims are offended at their truth. Also note that none of these hysterically angry Muslims even bother to deny Benedict's remarks -- they simply say that they insult Islam, not that their meaning is inaccurate.

Given Pope John Paul II's propensity to chastise America over any use of its power while saying nothing to the totalitarian leaders of the East (and later Middle East), Benedict's remarks and his apparent resolve are quite refreshing.

SHOCKING UPDATE:

AP: Five Churches Attacked

Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday, following remarks by Pope Benedict that angered many Muslims.

Used without permission from Professor Chaos who posted it here, but who had originally offered to write it for the Jawa but then didn't. Which sort of pissed me off because how does my linking his story help me get any crazy blog money? He sort of gave me permission to post it here, but with the caveat that I change the word pope every time it appeared to porn. Which I didn't, because we don't need any more trolls looking for "pope porn" around here.

In any event when The Jawa Report had just two readers, Chaos was one of them--only he went by the name Leopold Stotch back then I think. The other one was Bill Dauterieve who recently became a Jawa author. But not Stotch. Noooo, Stotch thinks he's too good for that.

I got news for you Stotch, you're right down here in the sewer with the rest of us. If you won't write for us, then we'll just steal your schtick and post it.

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:23 PM | Comments (52) | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Yep, "Call me angry and war-like and I'll kick your ass". Someone needs to tell them that sometimes the truth hurts.

Posted by: Junebugg at September 16, 2006 01:35 PM (/Jsts)

2 I'm not a Catholic but I loved the old Pope for his compassion and I love this new Pope Benedict XVI for his guts!
I want to tell him in his native language: "Ganz richtig! Auf gut Deutsch gesagt!" [translation: Absolutely right! Well said Sir!]

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at September 16, 2006 01:37 PM (Bp6wV)

3 This feels an awful lot like a forced conversion ...

Posted by: Professor Chaos at September 16, 2006 01:50 PM (2v4YI)

4 This feels an awful lot like a forced conversion ...

(or a dissertation defense)

Posted by: Professor Chaos at September 16, 2006 01:54 PM (2v4YI)

5 Did you see the picture of the Pope that is circulating around the Arab world? And they complain about Muhammad's cartoons being shown in the West? Pales in comparison to what they did to the Pope's pic. Another round of Koran in the toilet, Muhammad cartoons and a Fatwa against the Islamofascists is in order I think.

Posted by: Stan the Infidel in Indonesia at September 16, 2006 02:08 PM (V8mwW)

6 Pope Benedict XVI was very courageous in saying what needs to be said in regards to Islamo-Fascism. And he hasnâ€™t apologized for what he said. He just said he is sorry that the Muslims were offended.

But, I guess the Muslims canâ€™t handle the truth.

By the way, leftists have come out and renounced the Popeâ€™s comments.

Here is what one liberal blogger posted.

http://melt212.livejournal.com/171321.html

â€œI feel empathy for the muslims who just got bitch slapped by the pope because I had a boyfriend like that once. â€

Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Party base. Treats foreign affairs like it was the Jerry Springer show.

Posted by: Jeff at September 16, 2006 02:15 PM (KDtHu)

7 They can make all the terrible pictures of the pope that they want. We're not going to start firebombing mosques because of it. Not that they'd notice that bit of civility.

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at September 16, 2006 02:27 PM (WvUov)

8 Ok...so now that the Pope is "sorry", can we expect the RoP moderates to lay down their guns and grenades and act like the "non-violent" muslims they VOCIFEROUSLY CLAIM they are?

heh...don't hold your breath.

Posted by: mrclark at September 16, 2006 02:36 PM (k8oUP)

9 All our beliefs should be in 2000 years of knowledge not 2000 year old knowledge. What to do? The barbarians are on both sides of the gate!

Posted by: tbone at September 16, 2006 02:39 PM (HGqHt)

10 We don't forcibly convert anyone, Professor. It's banned by the Jawa Holy Book.

We simply cut your head off if you don't.

Posted by: Vinnie at September 16, 2006 02:55 PM (/qy9A)

11 He's not going to apologize for something he didn't do.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 16, 2006 03:12 PM (8e/V4)

12 tbone, I excused your bout of silliness the other day, but your moral equivalence is starting to get tiresome. If somehow you can equate today's Catholicism to today's Islam, I do wish you would show me some proof. I don't happen to be Catholic, but I'll tell you one thing, I would spend my life in a Catholic country or setting long before I would an Islamic country. There is no comparison. One is truly barbaric, and the other is not. And I know which it is, and you should be ashamed to say otherwise.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 16, 2006 03:24 PM (rUyw4)

13 I dont think the issue is weather or not muslims are blood thirsty religious fanatics, but the implications of such a brod statement comming from such a influencial, powerfull man. The popes quote was Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. That's like saying because the bibal states justice as being "an eye for an eye" (exodus), jesus brought nothing but evil and inhuman things. Now, regardless of weather youre a terrible person, or particularily vengefull, if your a fellow christan, that quote could very well rub you the wrong way. And as far as bombing churches, the middle esat has been religiously tense for 6 decades with issues coming from every possible side of the fence. I live in canada, and so far all I've seen from this is some iritated muslims, but definilty no vengefull bombings. And no one has tried to forcibly convert me or threatened to decapitate me. i don't know if you guys have delt with that kind of stuff before, but if so that's pretty crazy. But it seems to me that the muslim people you guys know must be pretty terrible, because you guys seemed to have judged all 1.100 billion of them. Anyway thiers my two cents, I stumbled across you're forum while searching for different perspectives on the isss. I mean you lot no disrespect

God Bless

Sal Hawkens

Posted by: sal hawkens at September 16, 2006 06:01 PM (Gq6bx)

14 I dont think the issue is weather or not muslims are blood thirsty religious fanatics, but the implications of such a brod statement comming from such a influencial, powerfull man. The popes quote was Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. That's like saying because the bibal states justice as being "an eye for an eye" (exodus), jesus brought nothing but evil and inhuman things. Now, regardless of weather youre a terrible person, or particularily vengefull, if your a fellow christan, that quote could very well rub you the wrong way. And as far as bombing churches, the middle esat has been religiously tense for 6 decades with issues coming from every possible side of the fence. I live in canada, and so far all I've seen from this is some iritated muslims, but definilty no vengefull bombings. And no one has tried to forcibly convert me or threatened to decapitate me. i don't know if you guys have delt with that kind of stuff before, but if so that's pretty crazy. But it seems to me that the muslim people you guys know must be pretty terrible, because you guys seemed to have judged all 1.100 billion of them. Anyway thiers my two cents, I stumbled across you're forum while searching for different perspectives on the isss. I mean you lot no disrespect

God Bless

Sal Hawkens

Posted by: sal hawkens at September 16, 2006 06:02 PM (Gq6bx)

15 Sal Hawkens:
you gawd damn Mohammedan-and-honor-killer apologist,
you passive and effeminate Quebecois wimp,
you NDP voting Commie pinko,
FOAD.

Posted by: Darth Vag at September 16, 2006 06:12 PM (HSkSw)

16 Jesse Jackson was on Fox TV this AM saying the Pope should apologize to the muslims. Asshole.

Sal hawkens: From now on you shall be known as Sadie Hawkens. Just as ignorant to the modern world. Yea. 3000 deaths at the world trade center was nothing. May you be in the next bldg they blow up. After all it doesn't count unless it happens to you. Right.
And fuck Canada. They used to be a country with balls. Now nothing more than socialists in fear of the muslims they let move there.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 16, 2006 06:21 PM (a3ssJ)

17 wow! Im sorry i affended you so much. Im sure that whatever religion you're a part of your God must love all that rage and hate. You seem like a good person.

Posted by: sal hawkens at September 16, 2006 06:24 PM (Gq6bx)

18 wow! Im sorry i affended you so much. Im sure that whatever religion you're a part of your God must love all that rage and hate. You seem like a good person.

Posted by: sal hawkens at September 16, 2006 06:24 PM (Gq6bx)

19 Canadians are all of the Church of Tax and Spend.

Useless castrated lemmings...

Posted by: Darth Vag at September 16, 2006 06:27 PM (HSkSw)

20 Here is a bit of fresh air:

Four churches hit, none were Roman Catholic. Morons, complete ignorant morons. The only thing we need to do is find out who it is that explains to them where they are really supposed to put their dicks, and silence them. The rest will be history.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 16, 2006 06:35 PM (n4VvM)

21 Sal, like the muslim world, you have latched onto this sentence:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

as if it's all the Pope said. One of the points he was addressing was violence in the name of religion. A topic like that demands that the speech bear some relevance to the problems that the world is currently facing. Which religion, and I'm talking about on a global scale here, is currently at the forefront of conversions under duress and killing in the name of God? Zen buddhists? Mormons? Wiccans? As for this piece of tripe:

And as far as bombing churches, the middle esat has been religiously tense for 6 decades with issues coming from every possible side of the fence. I live in canada, and so far all I've seen from this is some iritated muslims, but definilty no vengefull bombings. And no one has tried to forcibly convert me or threatened to decapitate me.

Tell that to the non-muslims of Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia - all not located in the Middle East. I'm sure they'll be willing to listen and will totally agree with you.

Posted by: Graeme at September 16, 2006 06:53 PM (gUTB0)

22 Sal Hawkings: Get some testosterone shots quick.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 16, 2006 07:36 PM (a3ssJ)

23 How is it that all these Muslims can get a transcription of the Pope's speech, read it and understand it, find material for placards and neatly block print nasty words for the Pope and the West in English, find material for effigies etc. They can't.

THe radical immans preached the hate on Friday, distributed the placards and effigies at the door, along with some matches, called the photographers and probably even sent in the photos to our news sources now showing them on TV

It wouldn't matter what the Pope said. THey want war. And before they come in for the final kill, they want us cowering so we won't talk amongst ourselves and possibly fight back. This is a cynical and planned media attack and of course the New York Times is falling all over itself not to offend.

THey seem to be playing chess while we play pick-up-sticks.

Please tell me that I am just being paranoid.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 16, 2006 08:10 PM (fIUHw)

24 Flight 93 Heroic, Flight 93. Let's Roll!

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 16, 2006 08:51 PM (n4VvM)

I always find it interesting, when the Muslims get upset about being compared to "Fascists"!

President Bush used the term "Islamo-fascists" the other week, and it so upset the Muslims, it even came out when the Palestinian Group kidnapped Centani and Wiig of FoxNews!

Everyone should take a gander at this Article, to show EXACTLY how tied in, the Muslims were, and have been tied DIRECTLY in with the Fascists, since the 1930's!

By the way, this guy, the Grand Mufti of Jeruselum, was Yasser Arafat's distant cousin!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni

Posted by: Dale in Atlanta at September 16, 2006 08:56 PM (5mxUn)

26 Sal,
The reason you haven't seen overtly violent demonstartions from Muslims in Canada following the Pope's statement is that Muslims here don't feel they have sufficient numbers, i.e. a critical mass. And a significant portion of Canada's population is Catholic.
Have you forgotten the Muslim plot to blow up the CN Tower and CSIS HQ in Toronto and the plot to attack the House of Commons?
Don't be naive man! Wake up and smell the toast burning.
For God's sake have a look at the following link
http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=1&page=1

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at September 16, 2006 09:31 PM (Bp6wV)

27 Darth Vag,
I can assure you that in Canada's most populace province the average Joe-six-pack Canadian is NOT likely to want to play the apologist to the Islamo-fascist like Sal; on the contrary, people here are sick and tired of the Islamists using political correctness/Multiculturalism as instruments for furthering their expansionist aggenda.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at September 16, 2006 09:36 PM (Bp6wV)

28 "Also note that none of these hysterically angry Muslims even bother to deny Benedict's remarks -- they simply say that they insult Islam, not that their meaning is inaccurate."

Actually, the designated "good cop" -- "Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority, Grand Mufti Abdul-Aziz al-Sheik" has said, "These are all lies." (Jerusalem Post)

Doesn't change the fact that the response of muslim leaders to this "insult" to Islam dishonors their faith far beyond anything the Pope could do or say.

Posted by: Clint at September 16, 2006 10:44 PM (RD5BM)

29 Did anyone even bother to read what the Pope said? He was quoting a conversation between a Byzantine ruler and a Persian. Quoting a conversation. The NYT led the lynching, and then the usual suspects followed suit. I wonder if there is a major news organization left with any integrity. Highly doubtful. In any event, the reaction of these Muslims has proven the words of the Byzantine ruler to be correct.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 16, 2006 11:15 PM (rUyw4)

30 THIS JUST IN: Ap: Muslims behead Pope; Democrats behead Bush.......film at ten.

Posted by: n.a. palm at September 17, 2006 06:51 AM (CWQzg)

31 From Sal: "That's like saying because the bibal states justice as being "an eye for an eye" (exodus), jesus brought nothing but evil and inhuman things."

No. It's not even remotely like that. An eye for an eye was Old Testament. Jesus was New Testament. Let me put it in more elementary terms for you. In the Old Testament the motivating force was fear and consequences. In the New Testament the motivating force is love.

Then you go on to say - "all I've seen" - "no one has tried to forcibly convert me" - "or threatened to decapitate me".

Sal, there is a world beyond your doorstep. Have a look around.

Further: "... you guys seemed to have judged all 1.100 billion of them".

What "seems" and what "is" are two different things. I can't speak for everyone, but the prevalent mindset here does not reflect your assumption at all.

No disrespect here. Just pointing out the obvious fallacies in your commentary.

Posted by: Oyster at September 17, 2006 07:59 AM (YudAC)

32 Oh, and BTW - I stand with the Pope. And I'm not even Catholic. But then I stand with Israel too and I'm not Jewish.

Posted by: Oyster at September 17, 2006 08:08 AM (YudAC)

33 More ROP shittiness... a 60-year old nun was shot in the back by Islamist Asshats in Somolia. Because of the Pope's speech.

Now, really, why should the world be saying bad things about this Religion of Peace?

When is the "Obsession" movie going to be broadcast nationwide in this country? It should be in constant rotation on every TV set in the USA.

I am absolutely bumfuddled about this...

Posted by: EricInTexas at September 17, 2006 08:46 AM (S6LwU)

34 ErichinTexas: I think we all are bumfuddled by this except maybe IM who is unquestionably lucid (albeit sometimes extreme with the solutions)

Our political leadership act like deers caught in the headlights. Where are our leaders ???

Nixon said that good political leadership requires courage, brains and compassion. We need someone with alot all three. And we need this person fast.

Aside: I'm citing Nixon - of all politicians - a true indication that the center does not hold.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 17, 2006 09:53 AM (fIUHw)

35 Okay, someone tell me why muslims and lefturds shouldn't be exterminated like the vermin they are. Anyone?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 17, 2006 10:27 AM (v3I+x)

36 IM: I honestly can't tell you why they shouldn't be - I just personally can't face this reality. I'm not claiming any superiority here, or "high moral ground" - if anything, I think I'm weak in this regard - I'm a mother, maybe that's it - but I am truely grateful for our military, those who do have the guts to stand up and protect me.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 17, 2006 11:51 AM (fIUHw)

37 I know Dreamer, I know. The awful truth is that we face an enemy that knows our strengths and weaknesses, and does not share our love of peace or our respect for life. The only successes against muslims have come as a result of brutally crushing them until they can no longer stand the fight, but they always come back after a time. This war has been going on with little interruption for over 1400 years, and will continue until the muslims are victorious or exterminated. They have set as their goal nothing less than global domination, and as long as one remains alive, they will be a threat. We know the measure of their resolve, which is so great that they will strap bombs onto their children, and they know the measure of our resolve, which is basically weak and halfhearted at best. Islam is a disease not unlike the plague, and every carrier must be eradicated. There is no such thing as a peaceful muslim, there are only those who have taken up jihad, and those who haven't yet. As long as muslims exist in the world, there will always be killing in the name of their moon god, and they will always enjoy the unconditional support of the liberals. We must resolve to fight them to the death or surrender now, because those are the only options that they recognise, and since they're the ones who have been at war with us for over fourteen centuries, we're playing by their rules.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 17, 2006 01:31 PM (v3I+x)

38 IM: Do you think there is any chance of an Islamic reformation? ...I call myself "dreamer" for a reason, I guess. What do you make of Muslims who are now apostates and speaking out - like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan? Too few and too far in between? Mostly women, which is interesting.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at September 17, 2006 02:14 PM (fIUHw)

39 "I dont think the issue is weather or not muslims are blood thirsty religious fanatics, but the implications of such a brod statement comming from such a influencial, powerfull man. The popes quote was Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. That's like saying because the bibal states justice as being "an eye for an eye" (exodus), jesus brought nothing but evil and inhuman things. Now, regardless of weather youre a terrible person, or particularily vengefull, if your a fellow christan, that quote could very well rub you the wrong way."

Sal Hawkins notes he is a stumbling visitor, so he might not be back. Just in case he does I want this to be here for him. Sal, I'm no expert in Islam wrt the TWO quotes the Pope offered in contrast. For that matter I don't know the background on origin of the Old Testament's verse of "an eye for an eye". But my interest would be piqued to investigate if your comparison wasn't the horrendous mismatch it is.

The Pope's first quote was of a verse from the Surah indicating 'No compulsion to religious belief' and contrasted it with Mohammed's later proclamation to spread Islam by the sword. I would have thought that both came from Mohammed, which belies the Emperor's assertion of "... only evil and inhuman ..." Maybe it is accurate if the understanding is that the former are words from God faithfully written down by Mohammed, while the latter, much later addition to Islam's beliefs, is Mohammed' own commentary. That would seem to fit well and, therefore, be worthy of the Pope's reconsideration from the standpoint of reason. Of course it could be thought that, the first, earlier, verse was then overridden by a later, opposite version, both by Mohammed. If that is the case, then the Emperor's "only evil and inhuman" is not accurate, and "did bring good, but then threw that good out in favor of evil and inhuman" is more accurate. (These are the only two reasonable ones within the context being discussed here; others drag in a much broader discussion of God and are not relevant to the argument or your analogy.)

Now your analogy. If you believe Christ is, in a simplistic lay fashion, the Word of God and in the same uncomplex fashion consider the Bible the Word of God faithfully written down, then "you might be of the belief that "an eye for an eye" are Christ's words, given before he was sent by the Father. So far so good. But, the only way you could leave your argument that this analogy is apt is, by you, yourself, concluding that "turn the other cheek", is, in your mind also evil and inhuman, because I know you aware that Jesus said that in an approving manner.

How do I know you are aware of that saying? Because I know you are not that great of an idiot. Sal, "turn the other cheek" was one of the most revolutionary concepts in history, an admonition in the Sermon on the Mount, to take that to heart rather than "an eye for an eye". I'll toss in the admonition "thee who is without sin, cast the first stone" for free, Sal.

So, Sal, you are being argumentative in a very bad way and in a poorly constucted way, too. You do Muslims a disservice by offering up a head-shakingly, stupifyingly lousy analogy. Unless, of course, you do think turning the other cheek is evil and inhuman. Do you believe that, Sal?

Posted by: Dusty at September 17, 2006 02:24 PM (GJLeQ)

40 Hey Jesusland Joe, thanks for the conversation. I don't think any religion is more barbaric - they simply are related to the host society's economic situation (liberal economy, liberal religion, Pat Robertson aside). Muslims may be more archaic with no centralized figurehead but the problem as I see it is that the Pope has his position as head of the Catholic church/state (Christians do have a Christian state, just like Israel - except surrounded by Italians) and there is no countering position of figurehead status from the 'other' side. So who does he expect will respond to his provocational 'statement'?

Posted by: tbone at September 17, 2006 03:01 PM (XDUhP)

41 The stage for this conflict was set 3000 years ago when Abraham drove Ishmael into the wilderness. His descendants, the Arabs, have never forgiven this. Thus they are in never-ending conflict with all their neighbors, and their neighbors in constant war with them. The conflict will not end until the Arabs and the armies of the nations march on Jerusalem and are destroyed in the valley of megiddo. There will be no peace before that day. There is nothing we can do to stop it, nor do we need to encourage it. It will happen all its own.

Posted by: josh at September 17, 2006 03:10 PM (8e/V4)

42 Where's the valley of megiddo. I gotta see this.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 17, 2006 04:40 PM (HpNVY)

43 Uh, tbone, would you please read the statement before you say it was provocative? It was in no way provocative. He was quoting a conversation between two men, one Christian and one Muslim, discussing Islam, and whether it offered anything new. How is that provacative?

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 17, 2006 05:54 PM (rUyw4)

44 Dreamer, an islamic reformation is impossible, because the savage nature of most muslims means that the most violent will always call the shots - literally. Any "moderate" muslims who stand up to the terrorists will lie down riddled with shrapnel. The only solution is to kill them all and let God sort them out.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 17, 2006 06:47 PM (v3I+x)

45 Actually George Bush (our fearless and great leader) called the Pope and asked him to incite the muslimes. The muslimes actions were predictable. Bush's ratings will rise in time for the elections. Smart huh! Why we republicans keep on winning.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 17, 2006 06:53 PM (SPFoM)

46 Rusty,

The Pope may have had another purpose in focusing attention on the Byzantine Empire, a highly cultured, Christian- Roman civilization that pre-existed in the areas conquered by the Islamic Empires that replaced it. Not for Byzantineâ€™s record for religious toleration, but rather by the consideration that several modern Islamic claims are contradicted by the historic evidence found from Byzantineâ€™s very existence and final bloody ending. For example, that Islam has a legal and historical claim to enforce its religious control over certain regions.

The Byzantine emperor expressed fear and abhorrence of Islamic violence for valid historical reasons. His civilization was under brutal assault by the Islamic armies. He was not an ignorant, irrational bigot. His civilization was under brutal assault by the Islamic armies. Yet, I find few people know or remember the significant details of Byzantine's existence and final bloody ending.

Islamic leaders have a tradition of ignoring the prior claims of other religions and civilizations that pre-existed Islamic dominance. Part of the Imams' anger may have also been provoked by their consternation that Byzantine's long buried historical lessons has been brought to world attention.

If you are interested, I posted a more complete version of this argument:
Islam Attempts to Silence an Historic Warning
http://loathlylady.blogspot.com/2006/09/imams-attempt-to-silence-historical.html

Posted by: Ragnell at September 17, 2006 07:26 PM (LQOJL)

47 Rusty,

The Pope may have had another purpose in focusing attention on the Byzantine Empire, a highly cultured, Christian- Roman civilization that pre-existed in the areas conquered by the Islamic Empires that replaced it. Not for Byzantineâ€™s record for religious toleration, but rather by the consideration that several modern Islamic claims are contradicted by the historic evidence found from Byzantineâ€™s very existence and final bloody ending. For example, that Islam has a legal and historical claim to enforce its religious control over certain regions.

The Byzantine emperor expressed fear and abhorrence of Islamic violence for valid historical reasons. His civilization was under brutal assault by the Islamic armies. He was not an ignorant, irrational bigot. His civilization was under brutal assault by the Islamic armies. Yet, I find few people know or remember the significant details of Byzantine's existence and final bloody ending.

Islamic leaders have a tradition of ignoring the prior claims of other religions and civilizations that pre-existed Islamic dominance. Part of the Imams' anger may have also been provoked by their consternation that Byzantine's long buried historical lessons has been brought to world attention.

If you are interested, I posted a more complete version of this argument:
Islam Attempts to Silence an Historic Warning
http://loathlylady.blogspot.com/2006/09/imams-attempt-to-silence-historical.html

Posted by: Ragnell at September 17, 2006 07:29 PM (LQOJL)

48 Good post Ragnell. All of islam's wars have been wars of "defense" of islam or muslims. They attacked Persia and Byzantium to prevent them from attacking islam. Then they attacked Egypt, North Africa, Spain, France, Greece, the Balkans, and Austria to keep them from attacking islam. See how simple it is? Islam is very legalistic in its methodology, and so its doctrine is very strict in when and how to conduct war; for example, war is permissable to defend muslim territory from infidels.
What, then is the legal definition of muslim territory? Well, any place that a muslim sets his foot becomes de facto muslim territory, so war is inevitable simply by the presence of muslims. They carry the jihad with them wherever they go, with full doctrinal support. Anyone who meets a muslim has three choices; convert, fight to the death, or fight until you have to surrender, then become a slave. The only way to deal with muslims is to kill them wherever they are found, and the more brutal the death they are given, the better, so as to serve as a lesson to future jihadis.
When we have to fight them in our own streets, the best way to dispose of them will be either burning them alive or stuffing their dicks into their mouths and covering them with pig's blood.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 17, 2006 09:05 PM (v3I+x)

49 I can see it now...here is an excerpt of tommarows news:

As we all have heared by now Mulsims in the middle east are venting their rage at just about anything. Thier latest victim is the Roman Catholic chruch on the corner of Jihad and Baklava in downtown Beirut. A throng of angry Muslims descended on the church and proceeded to torch and loot the entire contents. When a masked gunman was asked why the church was targeted by the mob, he replied "The Pope has offended the great Satan...I mean Mohammed, and we will not stand for this! They will pay dearly for this insult to islam, BEHEAD THE POPE ALLLAH WAKBAR (FIRING AK47 INTO THE AIR)"

Posted by: Farty McNasty at September 18, 2006 02:39 AM (u3bd/)

50 I came across some addition text of the quote and found it quite interesting considering the response from the "religion of peace". Seems like the islamotards owned up to exactly what the Emperor was talking about.

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." He then continues, saying, "God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (syn logo) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."

Posted by: JustPlainJoe at September 18, 2006 07:22 AM (Xj6+u)

51 For those confused by the Bible's "eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek", you need a little bit of context. The first is in relation to human government (ie it is a governmental responsibility to implement justice: an eye for an eye). The second is in regards to personal response (ie don't take the law into your own hands). One does not supercede the other, and both are still valid today.

Posted by: Henry at September 18, 2006 07:31 AM (GCweL)

52 True, Henry, though "an eye for an eye" beyond the setting in which it is judged, was a lawful right of the people, and it's words define both rigorous justice and it's limits, preventing penalties to only what is just.

And as is pretty clear from the statistics, most cases are individually brought to court not governmentally initiated. Jesus's admonition to "turn the other cheek" was the most famous excerpt of His response to the traditional right of "an eye for an eye", and also included " ... and if anyone would go to the law with thee and take thy tunic, let him take thy cloak as well ...". In this sense, Jesus is telling listeners to consider not claiming their right, "an eye for an eye", for charity's sake.

As you say, both are still valid today but I would not go so far as to say that Jesus did not teach that the latter should not supercede the former in the foregoing sense of individually initiated suits which is just another form of turning the other cheek.

But context is good so let me go beyond your helpful clarification. It seems to me that Jesus didn't leave it at "turn the other cheek" in toto, such that one should live life charitably singing "whatever will be, will be" while tossing one's cloak onto a heap of other belongings others demand. I think the context includes reconciling with your brother, coming to terms with your opponent, and another one I remember vaguely, which was if you had trouble in doing these go and bring another to witness in your behalf and, I may be wrong here, if that doesn't work, then walk away. Those are engagement using acts of reasoning, on the order of outlining one's rights and another's duty, something the Pope was attempting.

And I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: Dusty at September 18, 2006 03:34 PM (GJLeQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 31, 2006

Miss England Gets A Free Makeover

The beauty outside can't hide the ugly inside.

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:36 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

August 28, 2006

I renounce Islam

After having given my conversion to submit to Allah serious thought, I now renounce Islam. Yeah, they've got that whole 72 virgins thing going for them, and they also get to blow shit up--which are both cool--but I also have this little aversion to stoning whores to death. I'm more the live and let live kind of guy. Especially when it comes to whores.

So, even if there is no God but God, Mohammed was definitely not a prophet. IMHO.

Oh, and there's the pork thing. Mmmm, pork.

Posted by: Rusty at 05:30 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I just declared war on Islam myself Rusty. Who better to fire off the new Crusades other than me?

Posted by: dick at August 28, 2006 05:51 PM (XlQVK)

2 Do you want your toilet paper back?

Posted by: Brad at August 28, 2006 06:06 PM (Ignlt)

3 S**t - where does that leave the rest of is converts? Well, this calls for blowing something up.

Posted by: Editor at August 28, 2006 06:08 PM (adpJH)

4 >>>I renounce Islam

You can't walk away from islam and live. They kill their apostates real peaceful like.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at August 28, 2006 06:12 PM (8e/V4)

5 Yeah, I'm hoping that I FINALLY get a REAL fatwa.

Posted by: Jihad Rusty Dirka Dirka at August 28, 2006 06:18 PM (JQjhA)

6 Remember -- There is no God but God, and Jesus Christ is His Only Begotten Son.

That should piss off a jihadi or three.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at August 28, 2006 06:30 PM (OFvu8)

7 Poor Rusty. He's never gonna get that dang fatwa.

Posted by: Oyster at August 28, 2006 06:33 PM (YudAC)

8 You fickle whore! Allah will punish you! It will fall off!

Posted by: hondo at August 28, 2006 06:51 PM (XrexX)

9 This is the last straw. You will not make a mockery of the Religion of Peace™! I'm coming over there and fatwaing you up one side and down the other.

Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at August 28, 2006 07:01 PM (E8E1d)

10 Take a cold shower Preston. Dale er.. Rusty is a total homophobe.

Posted by: SeeMonk at August 28, 2006 08:06 PM (n4VvM)

I've been working on my own method of killing whores. But I get so tired all the sudden. No luck yet, I'll keep you updated.

Posted by: Darth Odie at August 28, 2006 08:32 PM (YdcZ0)

12 Bet I get a fatwa first! I'm flying an Israeli flag at my house and I live in Indonesia. I missed being there in Jakarta to hear the released Islamofascist terrorist Abu Bakr Bashyir telling all Indonesians to boycott US products. He said he was going to do his best to help the West understand that Islam is the RoP. Hahaha!! As much as I hate Soeharto and what he did to the people (especially the Chinese-Indonesians) and country's economy, he wouldn't have put up with any Islamofascist crap and Bashyir and the rest of his kind would have been dead a long time ago.

Posted by: Stan the Infidel in Indonesia at August 28, 2006 09:02 PM (bkh6P)

13 Flying a Israeli flag in Indonesia? you have balls the size of grapefruit -- I don't think anyone here can top that.

Posted by: davec at August 28, 2006 09:10 PM (QkWqQ)

14 We don't need to. Not in America we don't anyway.

Posted by: SeeMonk at August 28, 2006 09:14 PM (n4VvM)

15 Son of a bitch! I spent way too much time tonight on a post along the same lines.
http://snoozebuttondreams.com/archives/194400.html

Posted by: shank at August 28, 2006 09:15 PM (dWclD)

16 LOL Too funny.

Posted by: RepJ at August 28, 2006 09:50 PM (L5LRS)

17 Time for the goverment to get serious about the islamic extremists flooding into this country with the illegal aleins its time to stop this all now

Posted by: sandpiper at August 28, 2006 10:33 PM (1LUQw)

18 This is a light humor topic sandpiper - go back into your cryo-genic tank and chill.

Posted by: hondo at August 28, 2006 10:52 PM (XrexX)

19 You don't tell anyone what to do on this blog, so shut your fucking mouth.

Posted by: Vinnie - Editor In Chief at August 28, 2006 11:39 PM (/qy9A)

20 I Renounce Islam by Infidel Rusty
repeat ...
I Renounce Islam by Infidel Rusty

Again - I have no interest in you vinnie or anything you write. You seem to insist on following me with tantrum displays.

Posted by: hondo at August 29, 2006 12:40 AM (XrexX)

Now what are we supposed to do? :-(

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 29, 2006 01:51 AM (Dd86v)

22 MmmmmPork. Just like Imam used to make.

Posted by: Filthy at August 29, 2006 04:35 AM (LmcvK)

23 Vinne: Assholeism is a horrible disease and you've got the worst case I've every seen. What happen? Your boyfriend stand you up again?

Posted by: greyrooster at August 29, 2006 06:33 AM (fnweh)

24 Morning greyrooster

Wish me luck today - begin mother of all physical exams at VA as part of disability claims. Multiple claims Fed & State) I will be looking for 75% total - if I get it (very possible) I'm then running to SS for early out on disability. How far will 50K a year (bulk tax free) get me in Costa Rica?

Posted by: hondo at August 29, 2006 07:22 AM (XrexX)

25 The more I think about it and the more I see reported on CNN about these reporters from Fox and their comments during their press conference, they seemed very pro Islam and almost seemed ready to apologize for their kidnappers capturing them and forcing conversion on them. It seems staged to me and I'm calling shenanigans on Centanni and Wiig. I believe this was all a staged kidnapping and Centanni and Wiig were in on it.

Posted by: Stan the Infidel in Indonesia at August 29, 2006 10:04 AM (u2KKH)

26 Hondo

on't know. Never needed to attempt to spend 50K in San Jose. $18K will keep you on easy street and partying everyday. What amazes me is how they sell items made in America cheaper there than here.
Remember two things. In your mind you think beach. Forget it from May to December. Toooooo humid at sea level in the Summer. San Jose is 3800 ft. The climate is great. San Jose in not a pretty city. Other than that, I say go for it. Average middle class could live comfortable on $600.00 per month. Average 3 bedroom house rents for $250.00 per month.
Costa Rica is the most expensive country in Central America. Here's what we payed last March. Gas about $250.00 per gal. Remember a tank lasts you for a year down there. Bread .50 per loaf. Bananas .04ea., pineapples $1.00ea, Coconuts .20ea., lb coffee $1.31, squash .10ea, milk .39 per liter, New York strips $1.90lb, mangos .14ea,
And now the best thing. Local beer .50, Bottle of Bud .65, bottle of good rum $5.72. Go tropical and living is very good and very cheap. Chocolate, sugar, oranges, and mary jane very cheap. Sweet potatos are nothing. Idaho potatos are much more.
Anyway friend, you get the point. I highly recomend Costa Rica 6 mos in the winter and the good old USA the rest of the year. Oh yea, Spanish is the offical language. But everyone speaks English. Lots of blondes (German Immigrants) PS. Do not, do not deal with any of the real estate companies on the internet. I wasted 30% buying my first property down there. Also, the 200% return on real estate investment is bullshit. It don't happen. But 100% in 3 yrs does happen.
I do have an empty beach cottage you could use gratis if you pull the weeds this winter. Not fancy but is 12 ft on stilts and has windows on all four sides that you open and that wonderful sea breeze will put you to sleep. Short walk to Margaritaville.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 29, 2006 05:26 PM (BInc2)

27 I'd be up for that! And I'd take back all those nasty things I said to you! ;-)

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 29, 2006 11:46 PM (Dd86v)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 16, 2006

More Blasphemy

In honor of the DDOS scum...

From the Koran: "Why don't they contemplate upon the Qur'an. Had it been originated from anyone besides Allah Ta'ala then it would have been beset with inconsistencies and contradictions" (S 4 V 82)

If the Koran was not the literal word of Allah, it would be inconsistent and contradictory. Google lists 278,000 pages if you search for "Koran contradictions". I've got examples:

Who Was the First Muslim? Muhammad [6:14, 163], Moses [7:143], some Egyptians [26:51], or Abraham [2:127-133, 3:67] or Adam, the first man who also received inspiration from Allah [2:37]?

Heavens or Earth? Which was created first? First earth and then heaven [2:29], heaven and after that earth [79:27-30].

More short ones here.

Allah thinks Mary was part of the Holy Trinity in place of the The Holy Ghost: The Father, Son and Mary. Allah also doesn't understand the order and family lines of the Old Testament prophets. Allah is either not omniscient or the Koran was written by semi-literate desert nomad who claimed to be inspired by Allah.

Go take a look and see if you can find your own favorite Koran contradictions.

Posted by: cbjohnson at 07:08 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 2 kb.

1 And don't forget those pesky verses inspired by... could it be... Satan!?!

Posted by: Flea at July 16, 2006 09:07 AM (oMo4P)

2 Make sure that they're really contradictions, and not merely confusing bits that can be cleared up with research.

Posted by: Falcon at July 16, 2006 09:29 AM (y0GfP)

3 Hey Falcon...The entire Koran is a confusing bit.

Posted by: mike at July 16, 2006 10:45 AM (pRYjx)

4 I'm so glad here in America, most of us believe in Christianity, a religion whose core text is without contradiction.

Posted by: jd at July 16, 2006 11:08 AM (DQYHA)

5 I think what you mean to say, JD, is that most people claim to be Christian. Believing in Christianity, however, would require believing in the "core text" (More like the only text, the catechism is not God-inspired). I would have a hard time believing that is the case.

There is a popular myth that the Bible is chock-full of contradictions. You can, however, reconcile these "contradictions" with two neat inventions known as "critical thinking" and "research".

But such myths feed off of ignorance and apathy.

Posted by: Falcon at July 16, 2006 11:37 AM (y0GfP)

6 Surely Chris you must have a picture of a Pinoy tranny penetrating a koran...

Posted by: Darth Vag at July 16, 2006 11:46 AM (+nlyI)

7 jd:
It's just like a liberal to try and reframe the talking point:
SUBJECT IS: The Quran.

Posted by: davec at July 16, 2006 02:41 PM (voZp6)

8 davec,

Why do liberals do this? If you bring up one subject, they want to frame it to suit their purpose rather than comment on the subject at hand. Why did you do this, jd, rather than comment on the contradictions in the koran?

Now, my koran contradiction is the whole koran. The koran was one book while in Mecca, and a completely different one after the takeover in Medina. What a difference a few miles make, eh, jd.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 16, 2006 03:39 PM (rUyw4)

9 Jesus H. Christ, it doesn't take long for a liberal scumbag traitor like jd to pop up and equivocate between the cult of headchoppers and those who exemplify the exact opposite. Everyone with half a brain or better knows that the liberals support the terrorists and will aid them when war comes to our streets, so please tell me why all liberals shouldn't be hanged. Please.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 16, 2006 04:24 PM (v3I+x)

10 Boy Falcon straightened by Agnostic ass out.
Those of my belief have choices to make. Namely, if you don't believe who would or wouldn't you like to have in control. So I choose Christians of today. The worst would be Islam in control. Just read the news and you will see why.
At last rain. An plenty of it.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2006 04:35 PM (EJPUn)

11 A difference too is that the Koran is purported to be, in its entirety, the word of Allah. Never mind the fact that Allah never once spoke a word to Mohammed even by his own admission. Everything was related to him through Gabriel. The Bible is written by many men. If there are inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible, it is due to man's fallability.

Posted by: Oyster at July 16, 2006 05:34 PM (YudAC)

12 Absurd fucks will always compare the Islamic catalog to the bible, it's part of their schtick, and as davec points out a non-starter.

Now if one were to compare it with say JC Penney's Spring/Fall catalog, there are substantial similarities. However, neither the koran/quran or Penney's catalog can compare with the double quilting and soft underbelly of Charmin. They just don't have what it takes for those tough scrapes and I've tried. Oh how I've tried.

Get over wasting time assuming that any normal human can grasp the sickness that fills the Islamic guide to extinction- yours or theirs, you decide before they do it for you. There is no nuance to be determined in having ones head torn from the body.

Posted by: forest hunter at July 16, 2006 05:37 PM (TjUVb)

13 Well said: My feelings you are just better at putting it down.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 16, 2006 05:45 PM (EJPUn)

14 Now everyone knows why I love this blog. There is no place in the World where I have ever seen the contradictions of the koran better explained. Thank you, forest hunter.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 16, 2006 07:32 PM (rUyw4)

15 Hey, any of you moderate Muslims want to chime in on the Jewish faith. JD is busting his ass for y'all. Can't you quiet moderates out there come to his defense. These Jawa types think he is some kind of fool. Come on you moderate Muslims...help this boy out.
Give us something like â€œIsrael has a right to existâ€ or even â€œMost Jews are good people, there are just a few who are too militantâ€. Come on, something.... Anything.....This is your friend JD we are talking about. Letâ€™s help the guy out.

Come on, I'm waiting........

Chirp.....Chirp.... Chirp.....

Posted by: Brad at July 16, 2006 11:07 PM (6mUkl)

16 Brad--don't you think a moderate muslim who spent five minutes at Jawa would never come back?

Posted by: jd at July 16, 2006 11:37 PM (DQYHA)

17 muhommed only claimed to have spoken with gabriel.
mhhmd NEVER claims that God spoke to him.

and mhmmd mistook satan for gabriel.

which makes him an unreliable witness.

one must doubt all of his claims/edicts - for how does one know which of them came from gabriel and which came from satan?

but dig this: moses spoke with God.

directly.

in fact, "and God said to Moses" is the most common phrase in the Bible.

so you gotta really wonder why ANYONE would want the koran - the unreliable account of a man who CLAIMED he talked merely to an angel - and then sometimes took his cues from satan, becasue he cound't tell the difference.

given a choice, wouldn't you really want to follow the word of God?

of course - since churches and synagogues are banned in most muslim countries - most muslims are never given a choice.

as jesus said: BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM.

meaning that the creed of false prophets yields... well er um ... it yields just what the koran has yielded.

Posted by: reliapundit at July 17, 2006 12:01 AM (t/Bpk)

18 JD gets all the muslim help he needs from his boyfriend.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 17, 2006 05:51 AM (XamQD)

19 Hush up now, gay rooster. We all understand that your obsession with homosexuality stems from your deep longing to have anal sex with another man. You suppress that longing by appearing to be a rabid homophobe, but your own words on a prior thread reveal your predelictions....

Posted by: jd at July 17, 2006 07:58 AM (DQYHA)

20 reliapundit,

Don't forget to add: Moses didn't rely on people accepting his word by blind faith. His words were validated by fulfilled prophecy/miraculous signs (ie plagues in Egypt, crossing of the Red Sea, manna in the wilderness, water in the desert, ground swallowing traitors, etc.)

AFAIK, Mohammed had one whopping prophecy: that he would return to Mecca. Not a whole of lot of external evidence there.

Posted by: Henry at July 17, 2006 08:33 AM (iDMlC)

21 My own words. What a prick. Your words were (I'd rather be a friggin faggot than a friggin bigot).
A man wouldn't say that. Faggot! Admit it. You slipped and let the truth be known. I new it all the time by your effeminate writings. Now shut up and get back to you black muslim lover.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 17, 2006 01:19 PM (XamQD)

22 I actually would rather be gay than be a bigot...But I'm not the one who said they'd like to ram it up another man's ass like you did, gay rooster. And of all the posters on here, you are the only one who obsessively brings up homosexuality, when you aren't bringing up the Klan. I bet you like tight black leather clothing when you aren't in loose fitting sheets. You are Ernst Rohm of America's neofascist movement...I bet you even have the macho mustache...

Posted by: jd at July 17, 2006 03:00 PM (aqTJB)

23 Of course you would rather be gay. Thats because you allready are.

Notice how I have the carpet muncher talking about anal sex and men's asses. Nothing to bring these faggots out.
Soon he will revert to more gay weird shit. Friggin faggot.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 17, 2006 04:43 PM (XamQD)

24 OK, gay rooster--you finally got me. I am a carpet muncher. Proud of it. You say it like it is a bad thing, but really, it's great. I know you don't go for that sort of thing, as it is far too hetero for ya, but try it, you might like it.

Posted by: jd at July 17, 2006 04:47 PM (aqTJB)

25 fair enough request, Jesusland. How's this? Please remember that I don't believe EVERY account: Al Qaeda trains its people to allege torture. But so many of these have been documented that it's not just lies by our enemies.

Taguba Report:
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html

This extraordinary piece by Jane Mayer in the New Yorker shows how torture was chosen, deliberately, by the administration. Abu is not the mistakes of a few guys doing "frat pranks" like Rush has been telling you.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?060227fa_fact

You'll be shocked, but the "lightest" account comes from ABC's account of a CIA internal report on abuses by its interrogators. They note several of the deaths, including one I referenced
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866

Human Rights Watch documents a number of abuses, I'll clip the first page, and you can get the rest:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0405/4.htm

As a consequence of these policies, which were approved at least by cabinet-level officials of the U.S. government, the United States has been implicated in crimes against detainees across the world â€” in Afghanistan, Iraq, GuantÃ¡namo Bay, Cuba, and in secret detention centers, as well as in countries to which suspects have been rendered. At least 26 prisoners are said to have died in American custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what Army and Navy investigators have concluded or suspected were acts of criminal homicide.22 Overall, according to a compilation by the Associated Press, at least 108 people have died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and Iraq.23

What follows is a brief summary of what is now known:

Afghanistan
Nine detainees are now known to have died in U.S. custody in Afghanistan â€” including four cases already determined by Army investigators to be murder or manslaughter. Former detainees have made scores of other claims of torture and other mistreatment.

In March 2004, prior to the publication of the Abu Ghraib photos, Human Rights Watch released an extensive report documenting cases of U.S. military personnel arbitrarily detaining Afghan civilians, using excessive force during arrests of non-combatants, and mistreating detainees. Detainees held at military bases in 2002 and 2003 described to Human Rights Watch being beaten severely by both guards and interrogators, deprived of sleep for extended periods, and intentionally exposed to extreme cold, as well as other inhumane and degrading treatment.24 In December 2004, Human Rights Watch raised additional concerns about detainee deaths, including one alleged to have occurred as late as September 2004.25 In March 2005, The Washington Post uncovered another death that occurred in CIA custody, noting that the case was under investigation but that the CIA officer implicated had been promoted.26

GuantÃ¡namo Bay, Cuba
There is growing evidence that detainees at GuantÃ¡namo have suffered torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Reports by FBI agents who witnessed detainee abuse â€” including the forcing of chained detainees to sit in their own excrement â€” have recently emerged, adding to the statements of former detainees describing the use of painful stress positions, extended solitary confinement, use of military dogs to threaten them, threats of torture and death, and prolonged exposure to extremes of heat, cold and noise.27 Videotapes of riot squads subduing suspects reportedly show the guards punching some detainees, tying one to a gurney for questioning and forcing a dozen to strip from the waist down.28 Ex-detainees said they had been subjected to weeks and even months in solitary confinement â€” which was at times either suffocatingly hot or cold from excessive air conditioning â€” as punishment for failure to cooperate during interrogations or for violations of prison rules.29

According to press reports in November 2004, the International Committee of the Red Cross told the U.S. government in confidential reports that its treatment of detainees has involved psychological and physical coercion that is â€œtantamount to torture.â€30

Iraq
Harsh and coercive interrogation techniques such as subjecting detainees to painful stress positions and extensive sleep deprivation have been routinely used in detention centers throughout Iraq. A panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense noted 55 substantiated cases of detainee abuse in Iraq, plus twenty instances of detainee deaths still under investigation.31 The earlier investigative report of Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found â€œnumerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abusesâ€ constituting â€œsystematic and illegal abuse of detaineesâ€ at Abu Ghraib.32 Another Pentagon report documented 44 allegations of such war crimes at Abu Ghraib.33 An ICRC report concluded that in military intelligence sections of Abu Ghraib, â€œmethods of physical and psychological coercion used by the interrogators appeared to be part of the standard operating procedures by military intelligence personnel to obtain confessions and extract information.â€34

CIA â€œDisappearancesâ€ and Torture
At least eleven al-Qaeda suspects, and most likely many more, have â€œdisappearedâ€ in U.S. custody. The CIA is holding the detainees in undisclosed locations, with no notification to their families, no access to the International Committee of the Red Cross or oversight of any sort of their treatment, and in some cases, no acknowledgement that they are even being held, 35 effectively placing them beyond the protection of the law. One detainee, Khalid Shaikh Muhammed (a presumed architect of the 9/11 attacks), was reportedly subjected to waterboarding. It was also reported that U.S. officials initially withheld painkillers from detainee Abu Zubayda, who was shot during his capture, as an interrogation device.36

Posted by: jd at July 17, 2006 06:51 PM (aqTJB)

26 Oops--that was supposed to go on the other thread. Sorry! Back to carpet munching.

Posted by: jd at July 17, 2006 06:53 PM (aqTJB)

27 Here's another inconsistency:

Mohammed says that Adam was bald. That he tripped and bumped his head on heaven and lost his hair. Then he said that God, at a later date, grabbed Adam by the forelock. But wait, I thought he was bald?

Also, Mohammed said that Methuselah was the first to ride horses. Yet, he said that Adam (long before Methuselah) lead a cavalry.

There's lots more.

Posted by: Oyster at July 17, 2006 07:43 PM (YudAC)

28 Good catch, Oyster. That crazy Mohammed was quite a guy. And he should have hired a good proofreader.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 17, 2006 08:24 PM (rUyw4)

29 Told ya JD was a friggin faggot.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 18, 2006 07:39 AM (kw+3p)

30 Oh, gay rooster, your fantasies that I will join you in homosexuality are flattering, but I must disappoint you.

Posted by: jd at July 18, 2006 12:39 PM (aqTJB)

31 Keep munching on the carpet your muslim boy friend will be by and cause you to give it a big bite.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 18, 2006 12:57 PM (xVlDU)

32 I think we are talking about two different kinds of carpet munching, gay rooster.

Posted by: jd at July 18, 2006 03:28 PM (aqTJB)

33 Please look at http://mercyofallah.com

Posted by: HK at July 18, 2006 04:43 PM (6zHOC)

34 I am shocked by the amount of ignorance on this site.

Posted by: HK at July 19, 2006 10:48 AM (6zHOC)

35 Okay J.D. and GreyRooster. Go private with your foreplay and pick out a nice quiet spot!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 22, 2006 02:13 PM (gLMre)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 10, 2006

Blasphemy of the Day

For your edification, here is your satanic verse of the day, which is attributed to Mohammed:

"These [Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt] are the exalted high-flying ones, whose intercession is hoped for."

Why has this "satanic" verse caused so much trouble? Historians of Mohammad's life document the story of Mohammed's attempts to woo the Quraysh to Islam. Many of the Quraysh worshipped the goddesses Allāt, al-'Uzzā and Manāt, and turning to the moon god Allah required--according to Mohammed--rejecting the goddesses of their ancestors. This fact had originally precluded the Quraysh from accepting Islam. They were not opposed to worshipping Allah so much as they were opposed to rejecting their traditional goddesses.

The conflicts between the non-Muslim Quraysh and the Muslims had been quite a serious headache for Mohammed. Mohammed was pressuring the Quraysh to convert to Islam, but the non-Muslim Quraysh were unwilling to abandon their own religious traditionals. According to the historians, this impasse was broken when Mohammed publicly uttered the above verse, thereby endorsing the idea that Allāt, al-'Uzzā, Manāt were accepted as goddesses under Islam. In other words, this shift allowed the non-Muslim Quraysh to join Islam and still retain their worship of their traditional goddesses.

Sometime later (several years by some estimates), after the Quryash had largely converted to this polytheistic Islam, Mohammed received a new revelation that Allāt, al-'Uzzā, Manāt were not, in fact, goddesses. Mohammed explained that he had merely been tricked by Satan. Accordingly, the Quraysh could no longer worship the three goddesses and continue to be Muslims.

Historians do not agree on why it took Allah several years to correct his prophet. Some conjecture that the memo from Allah to Gabriel addressing the fiasco was misaddressed and ended up lost in a bureaucratic limbo. Others conjecture that a first memo was properly addressed, but conveniently "lost" by a loyalist for the three goddesses.

Whatever the reason, Allah be praised that the mistake was eventually corrected.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:06 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 3 kb.

1 JD's comment deleted.

Reason: Violation of TOS, TPS Reports allowed.

Posted by: Rusty at July 10, 2006 12:40 PM (simOF)

2 You want blasphemy. Try this:

Mohammed just pulled that verse out of his butt just like the rest of the Koran (maybe flushing it is the best use for it).
Taqiyya is obviously an integral part of Islam and has been employed from the beginning. What the followers of Allah don't realize is that it is being employed on them too.

Posted by: Henry at July 10, 2006 01:09 PM (iDMlC)

3 Rusty: Could you decode that for me?

Posted by: YBP at July 10, 2006 01:11 PM (gZnyq)

4 Was this verse originally part of Chapter 53 in the Koran (the names of the daughters are mentioned there), or was that chapter "revealed" afterwards in order to prove these were not angels either?

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at July 10, 2006 01:47 PM (RIPcF)

5 Henry, I'm appalled at your blasphemy.

Why would Mohammed lie? Mohammed was only a Prophet. He got a message. It looked legit. He went with it. How was he supposed to know whether the message was from Allah or from Satan? You think he had a super-secret Gabriel decoder ring or something?

Surely Satan deceived Mohammed in order to get a Mohammedan shout out to his three girlfriends, not realizing that this little joke would have the completely unintended effect of encouraging thousands of non-Muslim Quraysh to convert to Islam.

This happened because "Satan is cunning" and because "Satan is a fool." You see, Satan was cunning enough to fool Mohammed, but not cunning enough to know what would happen after he did so.

It's just a good thing Satan wasn't more active in deceiving Mohammed. Otherwise, the perfect truth of the Koran might have been corrupted.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 10, 2006 02:06 PM (c/4ax)

6 Rusty, what the fuck? You censored? You, who spends so much time bitching about people who won't print cartoons of the prophet getting a blow job from a camel? (I'm with you in that fight?)

What did I say? Everything I posted was true, about the mormon revelatory experience with the prophet. I don't know what those acronyms stand for. Do they stand for: I'm a hypocrite?

Posted by: jd at July 10, 2006 09:56 PM (DQYHA)

7 Rusty, what the fuck? You censored? You, who spends so much time bitching about people who won't print cartoons of the prophet getting a blow job from a camel? (I'm with you in that fight.)

What did I say? Everything I posted was true, about the mormon revelatory experience with the prophet. I don't know what those acronyms stand for. Do they stand for: I'm a hypocrite?

Posted by: jd at July 10, 2006 09:59 PM (DQYHA)

8 All I said was if we are going to mock Islam for its pagan roots and its suspiciously convenient revelations during the life of the prophet, what about:

The Mormon church, which up until 1978 preached that blacks had the Mark of Cain, and did not allow blacks to become priests. Then Prophet Spencer Kimball had a revelation that God was okay with black people, just at the time it was becoming very difficult for the BYU football team to play teams with blacks.

And the earlier, very convenient revelation to Joseph Smith II, that polygamy wasn't God's plan, after polygamy had been officially sanctioned and practiced by earlier prophets Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. Skeptics noted that Smith II's revelation came after Congress rejected the state of Deseret's application for admission because of Polygamy and after the Supreme Court ruled that polygamy wasn't protected by the First Amendment.

And as for mainstream Christians...don't mock the pagan roots of Islam as revealed in this moon goddess incident unless you know the etymology and history of "Easter"...

What is so worthy of censor about this indisputable facts, Rusty?

Posted by: jd at July 11, 2006 06:48 AM (DQYHA)

9 And if you really want your head to explode, read up on the Mithra cults that predated Christianity and had many of the elements of the Jesus story exactly the same. If Mohammed flirted with paganism, the writers of the gospels plagiarized...

Posted by: jd at July 11, 2006 03:18 PM (mGsQ0)

10 A.)Who cares what Easter used to be if I use it now to celebrate the ressurection of Christ? Jesus is indeed my reason for the season. Whatever it was, I'm telling you what it now is.

Saying Easter is a Pagan Holiday as if it meant something would be like arguing with President Bush "Well you know, Baghdad used to be owned by Saddam Hussein before the Coalition sacked it". Well yes, that's sort of the idea. It was there's *pagans, Saddams" now, it's OURS "Christ, Coalition".

B.) The Mithras legend does not really parallel Christianity if you study it in depth, and those elements that do appear more similiar were added AFTER the time of Christ. Most of the "similiarity" between the two comes, however, whe you study the original translations of the Mithras text ATTEMPTING to find a correlation to Christianity, and add in Biblical terminology like "salvation" and "resurrection" where it is a stretch to do so. One frequently encounters scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices and then marvel at the awesome parallels they think they have discovered.

Mithraic scholars, you see, do not hold a candle for the thesis that Christianity borrowed anything philosophically from Mithraism, and they do not see any evidence of such borrowing, with one major exception: The only domain in which we can ascertain in detail the extent to which Christianity imitated Mithraism is that of art. We are talking here not of apostolic Christianity, note well, but of Christianity in the third and fourth centuries, which, in an effort to prove that their faith was the superior one, embarked on an advertising campaign reminiscent of our soft drink wars. Mithra was depicted slaying a bull while riding its back; the church did a lookalike scene with Samson killing a lion. Mithra sent arrows into a rock to bring forth water; the church changed that into Moses getting water from the rock at Horeb. (Hmm, did the Jews copy that one?) I hope I didn't make a TPS report here.

Posted by: Falcon at July 15, 2006 07:58 AM (y0GfP)

11 Falcon--I'm no Mithra scholar, so I only know what I read. I'll look into it.

what is a TPS report?

Posted by: jd at July 15, 2006 06:48 PM (DQYHA)

12 Maybe you should be more discerning of what you read, instead of just taking what tickles your ear as proven fact. For more information on TPS Reports, please see "Office Space".

Posted by: Falcon at July 15, 2006 07:22 PM (y0GfP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 05, 2006

Tonight's Insult The Prophet Post

Picture 393.jpg

Hey, it's not like I'm desecrating the holly quoran or anything.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:57 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

June 29, 2006

Well It's a Dog Eat Dog

Eat cat too
Fish eat frog
And I eat....

Hat Tip Filthy Allah.

Posted by: Howie at 10:05 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

June 19, 2006

Well It's A Dog Eat Dog

Eat cat too
Fish eat frog
And I eat....

Hat Tip Filthy Allah.

Posted by: Howie at 02:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

June 07, 2006

Rusty's Fatwa Coming Soon?

Over the past week we've been inundated with traffic from Turkish language websites leading to our tongue-in-cheek "Karnival of the Koran Krappings", which was our little tribute to the religionists-of-peace going ape shit over a phony story about a Koran being tossed into a toilet by a human-rights-abusing guard at Guantanamo Bay.

Am I finally going to get that fatwa? Stay tuned.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:56 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

May 31, 2006

'Moderate' Muslim Country Jails Two for Publishing Mohammed Cartoons

Two editors of a Jordanian newspaper have been sentenced to jail for publishing cartoons depicting Mohammed, the man Muslims claim was a "Prophet".

Remember, Jordan is held up as a model moderate Islamic country. In fact, Jordan is moderate....but isn't it sad that this is what passes for moderate in the Islamic world? Nowhere in the Islamic world is there anything that passes for freedom of speech. Nowhere.

Khaleej Times:

A Jordanian court Tuesday sentenced to prison two newspaper editors for â€œattacking religious sentimentâ€ by reprinting cartoons deemed offensive to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), their lawyer said.
Jihad Momani, former editor of the weekly Shihane tabloid, and Hisham Al Khalidi, editor-in-chief of the tabloid Al Mehwar, â€œwere each sentenced to two months in prison,â€ attorney Mohammed Kteishat told AFP.

Reporters Without Borders had this tepid reaction:

Reporters Without Borders protested today against two-month jail sentences imposed yesterday by a Jordanian court on two journalists, Jihad Momani and Hisham Al-Khalidi, for reprinting cartoons of the prophet Mohammed that appeared in a Danish paper last year and expressed concern about journalists being harshly punished for doing so.
â€œThis is the first time journalists have been given prison sentences for reproducing the cartoons,â€ the worldwide press freedom organisation said. â€œThe sentences are totally out of proportion. We hope they will be reduced on appeal. We urge other Muslim countries where journalists are being prosecuted for this not to follow Jordanâ€™s example. Journalists must not be punished for their editorial decisions. The two journalists in this case were simply doing their job by choosing to reproduce the cartoons, like dozens of other media outlets around the world.â€ [emphasis mine]

Hopefully, this is just a translation error. Does the group wish their sentences to be reduced or overturned?

If the former, then Reporters Without Borders is agreeing to the notion that states have the right to censor that which offends our religious sensibilities--just not harshly. Perhaps a one-week sentence would seem appropriate?

If the latter, then I fully agree. Freedom of religion must include the right to criticize religion--even if that criticism is deemed offensive. If I do not have the right to criticize your religion, then I am not fully free.

In my opinion, Muhammed was a pedophile and a pervert. Worse, he started a religion which rejects the concept of separating church and state and which--from it's founding--condoned the use of military conquest for spreading faith. Next to Communism, political Islam has contributed to more deaths than any other ideology in history---perhaps even more.

Please indict me. I dare you.

Unfortunately, there is not a single Muslim country where I am fully free to say the above.

Hat tip to Robert Spencer who has more.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:23 AM | Comments (64) | Add Comment
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

1 So now you know, when the Libtards talk about the "moderate" muslims, they mean moderate by islamic standards, not ours. It's all relative! And it depends on what the definition of "is" is!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 10:03 AM (8e/V4)

2 Well they may be S.O.B.s but at least they are...... no wait that was already used as a rationale in Somalia. Jailing people for publishing anti religous cartoons ? The next thing that you know they will be making it illegal to teach evolution in schools. AS for seperation of church and state it took 16 hundred years for western Europeans to get to that point. Perhaps it will take the muslims an equally long time.

Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 10:08 AM (TcoRJ)

3 John Ryan, you are surely one of the useful idiots who can never find anything wrong with Islam. But to tell you the truth, the Muslims have had about 1400 years to leave the Dark Ages behind, and frankly, I don't have the time to wait a few hundred years in the hope these people will change. Nor does the World. These people are likely to destroy the World as we know it given a little more time, way before that change you keep predicting a few hundred years hence.

Christians and Muslims were on about the same level in the Dark Ages, and the fact that Muslims are still stuck there doesn't seem to bother you, but it is telling in my opinion.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 10:28 AM (rUyw4)

4 Rusty--indicting Mohammed for not founding a religion that respected the separation of church and state is like accusing him of teaching his followers to always breath air. there were NO religions in that time that understood separation of church and state as we do today. Even if we interpret Christ's render caesar unto caesar story as meaning separation of church and state, that interpretation was not the one of the early Christian fathers of the church. When Christians rose to power, they adopted the Roman practice of union between Church and state. Throughout human history, the forces of religion and government have been partners. In the renaissance the idea that church and state should be separate began to appear, but its realization is much more recent.

As for "pedophile": do you have any idea what the sexual age of consent was in Europe at the time that you are criticizing Mohammed? Do you have any idea what it was on the American frontier in 1840?

You are guilty of committing the same intellectual sin that leftwing historians do when they casually label our Founding Fathers "racist" and "sexist" as if modern standards of morality can be cavalierly applied to different historic periods. I'm not saying that Slavery wasn't racist; just that people need to be judged within their own historic context. We probably do something today that will be judged as immoral five hundred years from now (eating animals? Taxing income?).

And I'd love to see you count up the deaths that Islam has caused, versus those caused by Christianity and Communism. You got a source for that claim?

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 10:38 AM (aqTJB)

5 jd,

stop apologizing for your little brown munchkins. Christianity spread through evangelism, not the sword like islam did. So it's hard to argue islam didn't kill vastly more people than christianity did.

Regardless, communism is dead, and christianity has evolved. That leaves islam still stuck in the 7th century. You can't bullshit your way around that simple fact.

We know what we see with our own eyes and aren't going to disregard that in favor of your Leftwing pussyfutting and standard apologies for the munchkins.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 11:38 AM (8e/V4)

6 "Christianity spread through evangelism, not the sword like islam did."

You're right...the Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, the forced conversion of native Americans to Christianity...just fun and games, right?

I'm not going to sit here and defend islam (definitely responsible for a great deal of misery the world's seen), but I don't think you can whitewash Christianity's darker moments.

Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 11:58 AM (dbxVM)

7 ...do you have any idea what the sexual age of consent was in Europe at the time you are criticizing Mohammed..."

Well, I'll admit I don't know, but I would also be willing to say it wasn't nine. Talking about literally robbing the cradle.

As for the deaths caused by jihad, it is incalculable and is still racking up hundreds of thousands every couple of years or so(see Darfur, for example).

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 12:09 PM (rUyw4)

8 Venom,

you are ignorant. The inquisition occurred in CHRISTIAN Europe and did not spread christianity, it enforced it. The inquisitors did not constitute vast christian armies but mere individuals. So it should be obvious to anybody but the most obtuse of Leftards how ignorant your example was.

The Crusades also did not spread christianity but attempted to recover previously christian lands that had been conquered by the muslims. Those previously christian lands were christianized by the spreading of the Gospels through evangelism beginning in the 1st century A.D. and coming to an abrupt and grinding halt around the 7-8th century when Mohammedan armies burst from the Arabian peninsula began their global jihad.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 12:09 PM (8e/V4)

9 Carlos, my bad. I meant Spanish conquests (of North America), and for some reason wrote Inquisition. I apologize.

The Crusades, though, is a bit more debatable. I mean, while they were technically about recapture, a lot of violence was done in the name of Christianity. That, I think, it the more fundamental point.

Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 12:19 PM (dbxVM)

10 Venom,

the history of christianity is a bloody one as well. But just because it doesn't have clean hands doesn't mean you can analogize the two religions. One was founded by a crucified messiah and the other by a sword-bearing prophet. That had real consequences.

The christianizing of South America is a debatable point. Do you have evidence that the indians were forced into christianity at the point of the sword? I doubt it. You should watch "The Mission." It's a true story and represents the christian model of evangelism in the New World.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 12:28 PM (8e/V4)

11 I don't have evidence, of course - just the accepted view the Spanish (among others) came to the Americas looking for gold, and upon encountering the native population, became committed to converting them to Christiantiy - by destroying their pagan idols, by enslaving them, etc.

That being said, I'll keep my eyes open for The Mission.

Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 12:34 PM (dbxVM)

12 Holy crap. Are we actually debating whether christianity was forced on people at the end of a sword?

How damn ignorant are you? the crusades (there were SEVERAL) were intended in part to wipe out pagans in Europe (some up in Germany, btw). The reconquista part of the second crusade was designed to push back the Moors into Africa (it eventually succeeded). Those who refused to convert or leave were KILLED.

Conversion in Latin America was often at swordpoint or upon threat of enslavement. You are using the MISSION as a historical source? Well, even in that the church is divided between those who want to convert by force and those who do not.

Then there is the long history of pogroms and mass killings of Jews who refused to convert.

Islam's origins were different, and they did have the kind of easy relationship between military and religious authority that has not always been the norm in modern christianity. But plenty of people were converted to Christianity at swordpoint throughout the long bloody history of that religion.

Did you really not know that?

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 12:56 PM (aqTJB)

13 It was a trick question, Joe--there was NO age of consent in Christian Europe at the time Mohammed "married" the nine year old (most scholars think that he did not consumate the relationship until menarche). What we today would call child marriage was practiced among many Christians, particularly royalty. And guess what, Joe? The sexual age of consent in DELAWARE was SEVEN.

"Age of consent" referred in the late nineteenth century to the legal age at which a girl could consent to sexual relations. Men who engaged in sexual relations with girls before they reached the legal age of consent could be found guilty of statutory rape. American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was seven. Women reformers and social purists initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, although their ultimate goal was to raise the age to eighteen.[1] The campaign ultimately proved very successful; by 1920 almost every state had raised the legal age of consent to either sixteen or eighteen.
**

Above is from
http://www.alexanderstreet6.com/wasm/wasmopen/aoc/intro.htm

Written by three researchers at SUNY Bingham.

The point is, Joe, you and Rusty are using modern definitions of pedophilia to condemn Mohammed, when it is not clear that he consumated it, and even if he did, the same and younger girls were frequently married in Christian societies INCLUDING OUR OWN.

Did you know that?

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:07 PM (aqTJB)

14 >>>But plenty of people were converted to Christianity at swordpoint throughout the long bloody history of that religion.

No, I did not know that. I don't accept most of what you state as fact to be fact. Show me where "plenty" of people were converted to christianity at swordpoint.

In Latin America the indians were enslaved not by the church but by the seculars (your buddies). Nobody was killed for refusing to convert. I'll stand by that.

If christianity has blood on it's hands you'll notice that it didn't start with its founders but by people thousands of years later who mucked things up. Not so with Islam. Right out of the gate it was a violent religion. And still is.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 01:15 PM (8e/V4)

15 Ah, ragheads are ragheads, even if you take the rag off.
And leftards are assholes all the time.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 31, 2006 01:15 PM (a7z59)

16 Well Joe christians were still burning witches here in America in the late 1600's which were not the dark ages. As for not being critical of Islam, well there are certainly plenty of people who will do that in my place, I am not sure that one more voice will help in the reform of that religion at this time. But if you think that it will help then OK here goes: I HATE ALL MUSLIMS !! WE SHOULD KILL THEM ALL WITH ATOM BOMBS !!

Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 01:17 PM (TcoRJ)

17 Amazing how leftards continue to compare the distant past with today. Stick up for the enemy of America at any opportunity. That makes them the enemy too.

Posted by: greyrooster at May 31, 2006 01:19 PM (a7z59)

18 Carlos for over 25 years I was a breeder of dogs, Irish Wolfhounds. They were the first dogs brought to the New World by Columbus. They are now a very gentle breed, but in the time of Columbus they were feared man killers. Please follow this link to see some of the engravings that were done at that time of how the christians treated the Indians.http://www.reformation.org/new-world-holocaust.html

Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 01:23 PM (TcoRJ)

19 Hey, Carlos, check this out if you don't believe it:
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects98/carterp/carterp.html
In 1492, the same year that Columbus would "discover America", the Spanish Catholic Church emerged from several centuries of warfare against the muslims victorious, with immense wealth and authority second only to the crown. The Spanish Monarchy wanted to use the church to achieve a national unity as well as control in the newly discovered American continent. The absolute right of the Spanish kings was to nominate all church officials, collect tithes and found churches and monasteries in America. Pope Julius had awarded this privilege to the Spanish monarchs to assist them in converting New World "heathen".
Accompanying the conquistadors during the initial conquest was a priest that would read a requirimiento to the indians in Latin or Spanish and after this formality the Spaniards were allowed to pillage and plunder. The requirimiento was the only warning the natives had although they could not understand the language and sometimes it was not read in their presence. The document stated that the indians would have to surrender unconditionally or face the consequences of slavery or death. Excerpts from a Requirimiento (the document they read)
"...we will not compel you to become Christians, unless after being so informed regarding the truth, you desire to be converted to our faith..."
"But ...if you do not do this...I will come among you powerfully and make war upon you everywhere and in every way that I can"
"I will take your persons, your women and children, and will make slaves of them and sell them or dispose of them as their Highness shall command"
"...the damage and death which you suffer thereby shall be your own fault and not the fault of their Majesties, nor of mine, nor the knights who accompany me."(Braden,127)

The priests that came to the New World were faced with the enormous job of converting the millions of indians who were at that time worshiping various pagan deities. The priests used several strategies for conversion. Many conversions were forced with the help of Spanish soldiers. Many other conversions didn't last very long with the indians slipping back into their ancient faiths. However the indians that had been converted and relapsed back into their old religions could now be tried as heretics by the inquisition and many were condemned to death.

Do you believe me now, Carlos?

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:23 PM (aqTJB)

20 rooster,

They are the "reality-based community." Amazing how they'll deny present bloodshed under islam in favor of past bloodshed under christianity. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that islam are little brown munchkins, while christianity is evil whitey, now would it?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 01:24 PM (8e/V4)

21 And rooster whatever happened to your friends from the "Bronx"? the ones that were coming to get me?

Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 01:25 PM (TcoRJ)

22 Rooster--we are only focusing on the past because the claim was made by Rusty that Mohammed was a pedophile. He's wrong, or several Christian societies that led to us were also pedophilic. Then the absolutely gobsmackingly unbelievable claim was made that Christianity didn't convert people at the point of a sword. Were John Ryan and I supposed to go, yup, up is down?

Joe and Carlos, if you still don't believe us, please take a look at these books about Latin America:

Braden, Charles S. Religious Aspects of the Conquest of Mexico

Camp, Roderic. Crossing Swords: Politics and Religion in Mexico 1997

Both should be in any library of decent size, and both are at Amazon.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:26 PM (aqTJB)

23 Neither John nor I denied current Islamic bloodshed. That would be stupid and afactual. We were responding to afactual assertions by you and Rusty. There is plenty wrong with Islam without whitewashing the history of Christianity to make you feel superior.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:29 PM (aqTJB)

24 And Rusty "next to communism Islam has contributed to more deaths than any other ideology in history" well without going back to far in history my father wasn't fighting either of those 2 ideologies in World War II He was fighting the right wing fascists of Germany and Japan.

Posted by: john ryan at May 31, 2006 01:32 PM (TcoRJ)

25 Yeah, me too, John Ryan. I'll be very curious to see if Dr. Shackleford can back that up in the slightest. It seems a bit of bombastic rhetoric that is beneath him.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:36 PM (aqTJB)

26 jd,

I accept your account of how SOME catholics used force to convert SOME indians. But I don't accept that as the norm for how christianity spread. That is most certainly not how it spread into most of the world, and I doubt it was even how it predominantly spread in the Americas.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 01:38 PM (8e/V4)

27 OK, Carlos--on what basis are you basing your belief that most were not converted by force? research? feeling? hope?

How do you think it spread into Germany? Roman might. Into Spain?

Islam was not always promulgated at swordpoint, either. Many millions in world history have chosen it (one could question how much politics/economics played into that--one could say the same about Christianity in many "peaceful" conversions.)

what sources do you offer to back up this belief?

I'm in agreement, by the way, that all or almost all converts to Christianity in the last 30 years have been peaceful, and one could not say the same about Islam.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 01:47 PM (aqTJB)

28 Yes, yes, I know that, jd, but Mohammed married Aisha at age six and consummated the marriage at age nine. Seems pretty young to me for sexual relations, even at that time. But we are talking about people who had harems, multiple wives, concubines, so perhaps it wasn't an every night thing. But Mohammed married the wife of his adopted son Zeid, so what would one expect. But are we always to hold these people to a lower standard, and I'm talking about even today. John Ryan is constantly proposing another few hundred years for the Muslims to become civilized as a society, but I'm afraid we don't have that long until they blow up the World.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 01:51 PM (rUyw4)

29 You know, the Crips vs. Bloods thread from awhile back was way more entertaining, at least with respect to fighting between posters.

Rusty, if you're not going to jump in on this, how about another gang war topic so we can watch? You know, for shits & giggles.

Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 01:56 PM (dbxVM)

30 Wait, I don't understand, Joe. If you (and, presumably, Rusty) knew that consumating marriage at menarche was a long practice in Semitic culture (including the culture in which Jesus and Moses were raised), and that consumating marriages with very young girls was part of Western practices well into the 19th century (including Delaware's sex consent being 7)...then why is it important that the Prophet did this?

I don't get it. Either you knew, and were being deceitful in using this as a cudgel against Islam, or you didn't know, and are now pretending that you did. Which is it?

Would it be so hard to say--you know, I didn't realize that child brides were present in Europe and even in America as late as the 20th century. I guess, while there are many reasons to oppose various Muslim practices today, calling Mohammed a pedophile as if that wasn't something our own culture used to sanction, is kind of a red herring.

Is that what you are saying?

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:02 PM (aqTJB)

31 Rusty - 2 months (60 days) is actually extremely moderate by the islamic standards we know - and it will be lite time too! I'm looking at it as a potentially positive sign.

Rusty's thread topic was his personal opinionized view of islam. Why some feel necessary to change the argumentive direction towards Christianity says more about them than about Christianity or islam!

I'm an educated man - I am aware of and can slam Christianity's past as well as or better than most .... but that was not what the topic was about!!! Those who did it ... did it for their own personal reasons and hostilities towards Christianity.

I know the lib/left better than most .... to them personally, islam is a backward primative joke .... but they are deeply afraid of it ... and their multi-cultural relativistic mindset dictates that they outwardly "understand" it ... its how they make themselves feel good about themselves - and superior to the rest of us.

Attacking/confronting Christianity for them is safe, self-delusionally enlightened, and smugly progressive.

Ignore them - I do. If Rusty simply rewrote the thread and substituted something else for islam ... their responses would have been exactly the same. Quite pathetic actually.

Posted by: hondo at May 31, 2006 02:03 PM (el7nZ)

32 jd,

I'm not a scholar, but I am a student of history. And christianity at the point of the sword doesn't fit into what I know about world history. That doesn't mean you won't find examples, but I don't believe your example was the norm for the Americas, nor do I believe the Spaniards/Portuguese were the norm for christianity.

You state as fact that "Roman might" imposed christianity on Germany. On what do you base that? Feelings? That isn't historical. It's no more historical than saying "Roman might" spread it to Ireland. Just as christianity was spread to Ireland by Saint Patrick, it was spread to Germany by Saint Boniface. Essentially wandering monks. THAT is typical of how christianity spread.

Islam is a whole nuther story. Muslim armies raced out of Arabia in the 7th century and never looked back.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 02:06 PM (8e/V4)

33 I confess I don't know much about Boniface at all. But I do know Charlemagne converted at sword point in Germany after Boniface.

But let's assume you are mostly right--(although I'm certain you are wrong about the Spaniards in the Reconquista and in latin America, based on impeccable sources)--Islam was primarily sold at the end of a sword. Christianity, by contrast, was only half sold at the end of the sword.

ok, so what? what does that tell us about either religion today? My entire point is that Islam is not backward because of its uniquely bad history. It is backward because of its failure to address modernity the way Christianity did. There is unimaginable evil and brutality in the story of Christianity. Christians who deny this are violating the commandment about not lying. You do not judge the worth of a religion by what happened 700 years ago.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:20 PM (aqTJB)

34 When did I say that the natives in the New World were not converted by force? And I'm not here to defend Christianity, but to point out the dangers of Islam. There are plenty of people more knowledgeable about Christianity and its spread in the World than I am.

It is Islam that I am interested in. You all would do well to remember that Persia and Bzyantium were the two superpowers in the World when Mohammed and his followers came riding out of the desert. These two great empires fell to Islam, and Islam conquered by force almost the entire Mediterranean basin.

The Crusades did not begin for 400 years AFTER Christians had been attacked and conquered by the jihad in what is today Israel, Syria, Iran, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, all of North Africa, Spain, southern France, large parts of Italy, and do I need to go on? The conquests of Afghanistan and India by the Muslims is a whole other subject, but suffice it to say a mountain range in Afghanistan is named after the slaughter. To have a mountain range named for the murder and enslavement of the Hindus and Buddhists says a lot about how great the killings were. This might just be the largest number of people ever killed for religion.

So the Crusades were nothing more than an attempt to retake the Holy Land. Were the Christian soldiers perfect? No. Did they commit atrocities? Absolutely. But to say Islam and Christianity are somehow equal is moral equivalence I don't swollow. But somehow liberals and Leftists do.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 02:26 PM (rUyw4)

35 >>>ok, so what? what does that tell us about either religion today?

jd,

I'll tell you exactly what it tells us. It shows how the blood on christianity's hands isn't built into the religion itself but is rather the result of human failings; while in Islam, forcible jihad IS built into the religion and forcible conversion is not human failing but obedience to their religion. Do a google search on "jihad" "Koran" and "verses" and you'll see how predominant the idea of jihad is in the Koran and Islam. Until you can show me where islam has reformed itself, please don't tell me that it didn't influence how Islam spread in the past, and today.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 02:30 PM (8e/V4)

36 In fact, reading further, I come across a detailed account of Charlemagne's treatment of Saxons--it sounds a lot like how Mohammed treated pagans who wouldn't convert:
Charlemagne was engaged in almost constant battle throughout his reign, with his legendary sword Joyeuse in hand. After thirty years of war and eighteen battlesâ€”the Saxon Warsâ€”he conquered Saxonia and proceeded to convert the conquered to Roman Catholicism, using force where necessary.

The Saxons were divided into four subgroups in four regions. Nearest to Austrasia was Westphalia and furthest away was Eastphalia. In between these two kingdoms was that of Engria and north of these three, at the base of the Jutland peninsula, was Nordalbingia.

In his first campaign, Charlemagne forced the Engrians in 773 to submit and cut down the pagan holy tree Irminsul near Paderborn. The campaign was cut short by his first expedition to Italy. He returned in the year 775, marching through Westphalia and conquering the Saxon fort of Sigiburg. He then crossed Engria, where he defeated the Saxons again. Finally, in Eastphalia, he defeated a Saxon force, and its leader Hessi converted to Christianity. He returned through Westphalia, leaving encampments at Sigiburg and Eresburg, which had, up until then, been important Saxon bastions. All Saxony but Nordalbingia was under his control, but Saxon resistance had not ended.

Following his campaign in Italy subjugating the dukes of Friuli and Spoleto, Charlemagne returned very rapidly to Saxony in 776, where a rebellion had destroyed his fortress at Eresburg. The Saxons were once again brought to heel, but their main leader, duke Widukind, managed to escape to Denmark, home of his wife. Charlemagne built a new camp at Karlstadt. In 777, he called a national diet at Paderborn to integrate Saxony fully into the Frankish kingdom. Many Saxons were baptised.

In the summer of 779, he again invaded Saxony and reconquered Eastphalia, Engria, and Westphalia. At a diet near Lippe, he divided the land into missionary districts and himself assisted in several mass baptisms (780). He then returned to Italy and, for the first time, there was no immediate Saxon revolt. From 780 to 782, the land had peace.

He returned in 782 to Saxony and instituted a code of law and appointed counts, both Saxon and Frank. The laws were draconian on religious issues, and the native traditional religion was gravely threatened. This stirred a renewal of the old conflict. That year, in autumn, Widukind returned and led a new revolt, which resulted in several assaults on the church. In response, at Verden in Lower Saxony, Charlemagne allegedly ordered the beheading of 4,500 Saxons who had been caught practising paganism after converting to Christianity, known as the Bloody Verdict of Verden or Massacre of Verden. The massacre, which modern research has not been able to confirm, triggered two years of renewed bloody warfare (783-785). During this war the Frisians were also finally subdued and a large part of their fleet was burned. The war ended with Widukind accepting baptism.

Thereafter, the Saxons maintained the peace for seven years, but in 792 the Westphalians once again rose against their conquerors. The Eastphalians and Nordalbingians joined them in 793, but the insurrection did not catch on and was put down by 794. An Engrian rebellion followed in 796, but Charlemagne's personal presence and the presence of loyal Christian Saxons and Slavs quickly crushed it. The last insurrection of the independence-minded people occurred in 804, more than thirty years after Charlemagne's first campaign against them. This time, the most unruly of them, the Nordalbingians, found themselves effectively disempowered from rebellion. According to Einhard:

The war that had lasted so many years was at length ended by their acceding to the terms offered by the King; which were renunciation of their national religious customs and the worship of devils, acceptance of the sacraments of the Christian faith and religion, and union with the Franks to form one people.

***

If you care, he had five wives, one of whom he never divorced while getting the others, one which was annulled. He also had five known concubines.

It would appear to me that Boniface wasn't so successful as you imagine, if Charley had to come along and lop off thousands of heads (damn heathens) before there was a Christian Germany.

You can remain believing that Christianity was mostly spread peacefully. Many people need to believe things.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:31 PM (aqTJB)

37 OK, I think you make a good point. It makes it easier for pacifists within Christianity to point out that Christ was never armed, he was never part of a government, and never executed anyone or led any troops. I think this history allowed liberal forces within Christianity to eventually moderate those who favored swordpoint conversion and wars against non-Christians. This may help explain exactly why Islam has never gone through a reformation, and why individual liberty and limited government emerged in Christian societies first, and has found its strongest roots there.

Good point, Carlos, and well put.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:37 PM (aqTJB)

38 jd,

I tip my hat to your intellectual honesty. You have thereby earned a large measure of credibility points for the future.

;-)

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 02:40 PM (8e/V4)

39 I don't think Christianity is superior to Islam in its history prior to 1900. I doubt that Rusty can support his claim about numbers of dead, for example, when you add in colonialism. I also don't think the Crusades were all about reclaiming the holy lands. Some domestic extermination of pagans went on in the 2nd Crusade, and others.

But today? no contest. The treatment of women under most interpretations of Islam is an obscenity. The way I like to put it to liberals is this: if Saudi Arabia treated blacks the way it treats women, you would demand sanctions, as you did against South Africa....

Of course, many liberals are open to that argument. It is the oil companies who could never give up our saudi friends...

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:41 PM (aqTJB)

40 Well, it was a good discussion. I learned a lot about Boniface, Charlemagne, Aisha, the sexual age of consent in Delaware in 1894...now, back to work.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 02:52 PM (aqTJB)

41 I hope Venom got enough shit and giggles to satisfy his taste for same. And jd, you are more the classical liberal rather than the Leftist, as you are able to use logic and history to make your points rather than invective. I would not like to come up against you in my old debate class, I'll tell you that.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 03:09 PM (rUyw4)

42 And hondo, not only do you know your liberals, but you know your Euros and you know your New Orleans, too. I need to pay up on that debt I owe you. Micky D's for breakfast on me, hondo, with my kindest regards. Let me know where to send the money.

Posted by: jesusland joe at May 31, 2006 03:12 PM (rUyw4)

43 Just trying to lighten the mood, jj.

As it turns out, wasn't necessary. Good stuff by both Carlos & jd.

But I still think Rusty should put up another Crips vs. Bloods thread.

Posted by: Venom at May 31, 2006 03:50 PM (dbxVM)

44 You want a mid-week caption contest instead, Venom?

Posted by: Vinnie at May 31, 2006 06:48 PM (/qy9A)

45 >>>And jd, you are more the classical liberal rather than the Leftist,

Most of us on this blog are classical Liberals. Today that's what we call 'conservative.' While most (but not all) Liberals today are actually Leftists. They just don't know it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at May 31, 2006 09:20 PM (8e/V4)

46 Sorry to get in on the conversation late, but since even the late period fathers of the Christianity (eg, Augustine) indicate that church/state union came late to Christianity--at least 300 years after Jesus movement began--then your analysis, J.D., is quite off.

Posted by: Macktastick Wicked at May 31, 2006 09:27 PM (JQjhA)

47 Uh, macktastick? I don't think my analysis falls under the astounding common knowledge contribution you make to the discussion. Christians weren't in control of a polity until that time. They were a heavily persecuted minority for much of their early years. And when they got in power, they promptly started to persecute minorities and convert on the point of the sword. That's not because Christianity as a doctrine is flawed--it was just what most/all religions in that period did.

Posted by: jd at May 31, 2006 09:36 PM (JJJx/)

48 I've got my own little fatwa-worthy production up, in response to the Terrorstinians.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/179355.php

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at May 31, 2006 10:23 PM (tj/Ez)

49 Rusty,

You said: "Nowhere in the Islamic world is there anything that passes for freedom of speech. Nowhere."

On the contrary, the free press is flourishing in...Iraq.

Posted by: Don Long at May 31, 2006 11:01 PM (9P5pp)

50 If we're going to argue about how who treated who, every religion and culture is guilty of ill treatment and yes, out right murder in the past. However, and I know this has no bearing on Rusty's, Carlos' and jd's arguments regarding the mindset or acceptability of certain behaviors in the past or who forced what religion on what people, but in this day and age the kind of behavior we see by the most violent of people trying to bring about some long past forseen "prophesy" is totally unacceptable by the vast majority of the world. There is no excuse for it any more.

All in the same breath we can well use today's standards to judge Muhammed all we want. I've read in too many books how men like Muhammed and others who had sex with children, no matter the legality, were described as a lecher. Even then moral people were creeped out by such behavior. It was merely not illegal. And more often children were married off to other children when royalty was involved for the purpose of maintaining good relationships between nations. In other instances female children were married off to older men simply because they were burdens to the family. They couldn't pull a plow. And the older man, who was usually more financially endowed, was able to satify his lust for prepubescent girls while the girl's family shed their burden and gain a prominent ally. The need for that outweighed the disgust for such men.

And if I had my druthers, if I had to choose between the two religions (which I won't), I'd go with the nice guy who preached love and chastity rather than the guy who drooled at the thought of having sex with a nine year old in between ordering his army to kill everyone and take their stuff. But that's just me.

Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2006 08:01 AM (8S4yo)

51 That's me, too, Oyster. Well written, well written, indeed!

Posted by: jesusland joe at June 01, 2006 08:24 AM (rUyw4)

52 Vinnie,

That would be awesome. Bluto's dropped the ball this week.

Help me Vinnie, you're my only hope...

Posted by: Venom at June 01, 2006 08:34 AM (dbxVM)

53 Please follow this link to see some of the engravings that were done at that time of how the christians treated the Indians.

john ryan,

from your own link:

"As has been said, the Spaniards train their fierce dogs to attack, kill and tear to pieces the Indians. It is doubtful that anyone, whether Christian or not, has ever before heard of such a thing as this."

Obviously, according to your own source, christians weren't even aware of such practices by conquistador thugs.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 01, 2006 08:48 AM (8e/V4)

54 Singling out how Christians treated Indians without mentioning how Indians treated Indians is not quite being totally honest. Indian tribes, American and otherwise, practiced genocide, slavery and all maner of atrocities against other Indian tribes all the time. They attacked each other and regularly killed all the men and took the women and children as slaves or simply incorporated them into their own tribe to build their numbers. And sometimes they just plain out slaughtered the entire tribe.

This is not to say it's an excuse for others doing it against them because it's always been wrong no matter who the aggressors are. I'm just rounding out the story a little better by not equivocating.

Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2006 09:16 AM (8S4yo)

55 Oyster,

notice also that it was a CHRISTIAN MONK (de Las Casas) who was recounting the atrocities in protest that they were happenning. He was trying to raise awareness about it! lol!

Nice try, john.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 01, 2006 09:31 AM (8e/V4)

56 Notice also that Rusty's topic attacked islam .... AND NOBODY DEFENDED IT!!!!! (actually, I did partially)

Instead the usual suspects attacked Chritianity with the "OH Yeah! Well how about those ..." argument - an argumentive approach none of us would accept from a child.

Pretty much shows you where their heads are at.

Posted by: hondo at June 01, 2006 10:44 AM (el7nZ)

57 >>>Pretty much shows you where their heads are at.

Their heads are "reality-based", no?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 01, 2006 11:25 AM (8e/V4)

58 Oyster--I agree 100% that we should not ignore the fact that the Aztecs and other native Americans were brutal in ways that can scarcely be imagined today, just as the Christians were to them. We, the West, have been romanticizing the "noble savage" from Rousseau to Dances with Wolves, with Margaret Mead in between.

However, I don't think your at all accurate about child marriage in antiquity or Middle Ages, or even early modern period. Child to child marriage among royalty may be what we know best if we know anything about it at all, but girls of menarche age to adult marriages were so widely tolerated in this country up until 100 years ago that when we got around to codifying it, it was set at 7 in delaware, at 10 and 12 in other states. If you read the article I linked to, it was a class based anger that finally got the law changed, as you do suggest.

But the broader truth is--we have extended adolescence far beyond the limits of 1000, 1250, or even 1920. One became an adult at marriage on the American frontier. Some girls were married at 10, and had three children by 16 or 17. Their husbands might be 40, or they might be 15 at marriage. One reason for marrying young was the absolute ban on premarital sex (although not as observed as you might think). The other was the short lifespan. When the lifespan was 40 or so, it made sense to marry before 20. Long before 20. Also, the high number of women who died in childbirth led to many marriages of 15 year old girls to 55 year old men on their third or fourth wives.

Many things that today would cause us disgust were common. If they could see our century, though, it would shock the bejeesus out of 19th century Americans how we have infantilized 16, 20, and 24 year olds. A 16 year old woman might have been a pillar of society in 1850 with 2 kids. A 22 year old "girl" today is usually still dependent on her parents for her finances, and if she marries a 50 year old, society deeply frowns on him.

(Grover Cleveland married a woman decades younger than him, while he was president. I think she was 19, and he was in his 50s. She was among the most beautiful women of her day. Imagine that happening today? Sexual morals rapidly evolve.)

Posted by: jd at June 01, 2006 01:08 PM (aqTJB)

59 I understand your points, jd. But I don't think people's feelings have actually changed as much as you might think in the arena of what is considered a prepubescent child and when that line begins to be blurred. And I agree wholeheardedly that in this modern day we coddle our "children" far beyond what they should be and give them the same status as a 9 year old even when they're in their late teens/early twenties and should be acting like young adults shouldering responsibility for more even than just their own actions. It's really ridiculous. I call it the feminization of the world. Yuk.

But beyond that, men in past times who wed or bed children, I mean 'prepuscent children', were always on the edge of acceptability. Convenience and necessity often overrode individual morality and all sorts of justifications ensued. When you speak of 55 year old men wedding 19 or 20 year old women it cannot be even remotely compared to a 55 year old man bedding a 9 year old child because she started her period a little earlier than most girls. And there is recorded documentation I've read that girls indeed did mature physically earlier then than now. But only by a year or two at most. The average age for girls now is 13. centuries ago it was closer to 11 or 12. Age 9 has always been extremely young. We won't even get into emotional maturity.

I think what you're doing is taking exceptional circumstances and depicting them as a norm. In early America and even in earlier Europe, wealthy families generally strove to get their female children educated first. They went to the finest schools, segregated of course, but educated nonetheless. Girls of wealthier families were not nearly as often subjected to forced marriage to men old enough to be their fathers or grandfathers. When they did it was to unite two prominent families and the girl almost always hated it and the man certainly loved it. Most of the child brides were of poorer families. It was based more on necessity and convenience due to the lack of financial means to do things differently.

100 years ago and more in this country the "age of consent" was sometimes vague. Consent was given by parents in writing if the child was 'underage' and they were often part of an unrecorded promise of money or goods from the male's family or he himself. Generally the age of consent, ie. without parental consent, was 14 for males and 12 for females. And even that was pushed to be abolished and changed to 17 for males and 14 for females by the mid 1800s in many states. Your example of 7 years old for Delaware was certainly not the norm. You can't take the most extreme of circumstances and pretend that "well everyone was doing it" because that's simply not the case.

Posted by: Oyster at June 01, 2006 04:09 PM (YudAC)

60 I don't think I'm saying "everyone was doing it". I'm saying that sexual morals evolve with stunning rapidity. they don't always move to more licentiousness, they shift around in unpredictable ways. Also, the level of social control was remarkably less for most of European history; the legal code was personalized, not codified, and susceptible to wide interpretation, and many aspects of behavior were not regulated at all. Marriage was one of them. We err gravely when we imagine that our ancestors were like us without investigation whether this was true.

I have consistently read, also, that due to good diet, girls are reaching menarche much earlier today than ever before. Some lefties also attribute the rapid drop in age of first menstruation to the presence of hormones in our food. I don't know if that's moonbat shit crazy, but no one is contesting that girls aren't menstruating much earlier on average.

there's a very interesting book on the subject of evolving sexual norms, by Foucault, called The History of Sexuality. In it, he argues that homosexuality was invented in the 1870s. Wait, don't laugh. What he means is the idea of the homosexual as a distinctive scientific class, as an identity, first arrived in western consciousness at that time. A behavior became an "other", an identity. The same argument is made about race: that "whiteness" as a separate identity did not exist in the ancient world, and only came into being in the 16th and 17th centuries, as the new rationalistic vision of science turned upon itself, upon man.

What I'm trying to do is suggest that our current categories (legal age of sex, for example) are distinctly arbitrary in a broad historical sense. We experience moral outrage, apparently, when a 55 year old marries a 16 year old. That would be a laughable concept to someone 150 years ago. But I agree with you that 9 was probably the very rare exception in early modern history. It would not have been criminal though in the medieval Europe that was contemporaneous with Mohammed, and it was not unknown, at all. therefore, it is just a cheap political stunt, propaganda, and manufactured outrage to call Mohammed a "pedophile". That has been my point all along.

Posted by: jd at June 02, 2006 08:18 AM (aqTJB)

61 God! The American Indian thing again. ALL THOSE UNHAPPY WITH THE INDIAN THING SHOULD SHOW SOME CLASS AND MOVE BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM.

Leftards still believe what the Christians did 500 years ago has something to do with what the muslims are doing today. You leftards have appartently forgiven the Mongels, Huns, Goths, Arabs, Commies, etc. Why can't you forgive the Christians? Because you are sick and it doesn't suit your leftist, anti-American views does it.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 03, 2006 05:56 AM (V+JAR)

62 Wish I could draw. I'd show some good cartoons of the pig eating goat fucker.

Posted by: greyrooster at June 03, 2006 05:58 AM (V+JAR)

63 jd, we're obviously reading different studies on female maturity. ;-)

Posted by: Kim Jong Il at June 03, 2006 02:17 PM (YudAC)

64 Oops Sorry. That was me.

Posted by: Oyster at June 03, 2006 03:25 PM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

April 17, 2006

Hold On To Your Noggin.

Via Michelle Malkin we get this cool new Italian political cartoon.

Translation to English.

"Isn't that man there, split in two from head to navel, Mohammed?" Dante asks Virgil.
"Yes and he is cut in two because he has divided society," Virgil replies. "While that woman there, with the burning coals, represents the politics of Italy towards Islam

Cartoon Inspired by:

Fatwa Anyone? more...

Posted by: Howie at 08:51 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 112 words, total size 2 kb.

April 08, 2006

NASCAR Fatwa?

If NASCAR gets a fatwa before me, I swear I'll sue!

Posted by: Rusty at 08:37 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

April 01, 2006

Jawa Issues Fatwa

As most readers know, your Sith Master recently entertained the prospect of a new job. Imagine the thrill of interviewing for a more challenging and rewarding position only to be let down by being rejected. Denied with a simple, "We're sorry. We've chosen someone else." Okay, fine. Brush it off. Life has its ups and downs and there'll be other opportunities.

But today, guess what? Back channel scuttlebutt has it that your blogging mainstay and candidate was rejected for an academic position because he is a conservative. In fact, the rumor is that The Jawa Report was specifically mentioned as an indicator of your Sith Master's lack of appropriate liberal credentials. Realizing The Jawa Report reflects conservatism and conservatism in academia is tantamount to having the Eboli virus, there was no chance from the get go.

Blogging anonymously provided no protection because someone leaked to the university administration the information about your Sith Master and The Jawa Report. The administration recoiled and totally disregarded such things as qualifications and capabilities. Being a conservative is a deal-breaker in academia.

Therefore, The Jawa Report officially issues a fatwa declaring a war of words against the leaker who is also a blogger. People are already investigating. A field of suspects is being narrowed and you will be found soon. So, declare yourself, you stinking vermin, and let the games begin.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 03:05 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Oh I just said something to the university as a joke. The only reply I got was that they didn't believe they actually interviewed Pat Buchanen.

Posted by: Chad Evans at April 01, 2006 03:31 PM (uimQk)

2 Dr. Shackleford,

As always, I will turn my bow in the direction of the sound of cannon fire. A sailor can rarely go wrong if he brings his ship alongside the enemy. Standing by for you to identify a target as hostile. A humble brigantine are we, but standing by to lay aside the scurvy dog. No quarter.

Posted by: CDR Salamander at April 01, 2006 03:48 PM (YEJjq)

3 If that's the case Rusty, you're better off without that job and the morons that would have come with it.

Posted by: Graeme at April 01, 2006 04:34 PM (IhVC3)

4 There is no diversity when it comes to academia. I learned that in the early 90s when a prof made clear his thoughts about the 'evil' Republicans. I used his bigotry against him by spewing such things in a paper that I didn't actually believe and he gave me an "A" for the class. As a student, I fought back the only way I could.

Rusty, I hope you find the jerk and bust this wide open.

Posted by: RepJ at April 01, 2006 04:35 PM (y6n8O)

5 Rusty, as we say in Texas, a good old fashioned ass kicking is in order.

Posted by: jesusland joe at April 01, 2006 04:44 PM (rUyw4)

6 >>>Realizing The Jawa Report reflects conservatism and conservatism in academia is tantamount to having the Eboli virus, there was no chance from the get go.

That's curious. I thought Liberals celebrated diversity.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 01, 2006 05:02 PM (8e/V4)

7 Horrible news. I'm so sorry Jawa

Posted by: pka at April 01, 2006 05:04 PM (UA1kS)

8 Yeah,kick some ass, Doc.

Posted by: See-Dubya at April 01, 2006 05:37 PM (Zozmz)

9 I think that really sucks...what kind of a world are we living in. Can you sue? Suing seems to work for everyone else. I think the University needs to be put on notice that they shouldn't discriminate against someone just because they hold conservative political views. It's a free country, isn't it?

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at April 01, 2006 05:42 PM (aH6Zf)

10 Wait, does this mean when most liberals talk about a right to privacy, they really mean some else (like abortion)? I'm shocked.

Posted by: Capp at April 01, 2006 05:45 PM (XgLFc)

11 Have you considered a place like Liberty University? They're relatively unknown, but their debate team is ranked #1 in the country (Harvard is #14). I don't know the caliber of school you currently work at, or was applying to, but you might want to consider some alternative, non-big name schools. Domino's Pizza owner Tom Monaghan just opened Ave Maria University in sunny Naples, FL. It's new, and I'm sure they're searching for a few experienced, qualified professors.

Posted by: Rob at April 01, 2006 06:21 PM (BHl1d)

12 Actually, Harvard dropped to #33 overall. Liberty is still #1.

http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/index.htm

Posted by: Rob at April 01, 2006 07:11 PM (BHl1d)

13 Sucks. I'm an academian myself, but since I teach a skills-based course at an obscure school where few qualified people apply, no one seems to really give a rip about my politics. Still, I know how political and backstabbing it can be at schools.

Again, sucks, and BTW, I'm new to the blog and don't even know you're real name so it wasn't me. Heck, you could be Dale Gribble for all I know (and just how did his alter-ego ever get a Phd., anyway?)

Posted by: David at April 01, 2006 07:15 PM (wZLWV)

14 Excuse me, "...were applying to...".

Posted by: Rob at April 01, 2006 07:16 PM (BHl1d)

15 You can't get an academic job because of your beliefs, but the unrepentant Taliban ambassador with a fourth-grade education is recruited into Yale for diversity reasons. Go figure.

Posted by: Timbo at April 01, 2006 07:45 PM (u6zaV)

16 I tried to resist they tortured me but finally after many hours of continuous strippers all over me begging and begging and rubbing and rubbing I said it, "Dale Dribble!!!!"

Posted by: Howie at April 01, 2006 07:59 PM (D3+20)

17 Dude, it was Reynolds. He didn't want any blogging competition at UTK.

Posted by: Preston Taylor Holmes at April 01, 2006 08:40 PM (XNuZO)

18 As a Democrat and a graduate of the ultimate northeastern liberal university, in Massachusetts no less, allow me to extend my apologies on behalf of the left (whom I really don't speak for because I'm more of a centrist but I digress!) What was done to you was an outrage. Colleges are supposed to be places where debate occurs, and where ideas are debated. It's pretty tough to get that done with one side under-represented.

The blogger who leaked your ID should be ashamed of themselves, but at the end of the day, it's the university that should be hanging its head, because the leak should not have mattered.

Keep on keepin' on, Dr. R.

Posted by: JoyReid at April 01, 2006 09:08 PM (o1EiK)

19 It will be a sweet day when we can finally hang these scumbags from the very windows of their ivory towers, and it can't come soon enough. I just hope I can get enough rope when I need it; I think there'll be a run on it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 01, 2006 09:52 PM (0yYS2)

20 Why are the left so mean spirited, bitter, back stabbing and full of bile? Is it because they are losing nearly every argument? Have they always been this way? My best to you. My own experience is that everything happens to teach us a lesson, and we ARE stronger after the lesson.

Posted by: Counter Revolutionary at April 01, 2006 10:39 PM (Hr52v)

21 Damn Rusty, that's lame as hell for them (the University) and the rat to do. Stay strong, keep applying, your future success will be like wet farts on the nose of the leaking blogger.

Posted by: MidnightSun at April 01, 2006 11:50 PM (bHQwL)

22 No worries there, IM, I've been stockpiling for years, just waiting...
Rusty, obviously this was not the place for you. Good thing you found out BEFORE you signed a contract. You're place is still out there, waiting... for its time.

Posted by: Sly2017 at April 02, 2006 01:44 AM (UADHi)

23 Bite me.

Posted by: CDR Salamander at April 02, 2006 09:45 AM (YEJjq)

24 Here's my reaction. Piece of crap.

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at April 02, 2006 03:14 PM (AxdDu)

25 Must have been Debbie!

Posted by: Sonic at April 02, 2006 08:51 PM (Gsn6c)

26 Sorry to hear this. Politics should be left at the door when it comes to work. They should have trusted you to do the job based on your qualifications.

Posted by: Jill at July 14, 2006 06:14 PM (1McOT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

323kb generated in CPU 0.0658, elapsed 0.1095 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.062 seconds, 663 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

October 26, 2006

October 25, 2006

October 20, 2006

October 15, 2006

October 11, 2006

October 05, 2006

October 01, 2006

September 30, 2006

September 19, 2006

September 18, 2006

September 16, 2006

August 31, 2006

August 28, 2006

July 16, 2006

July 10, 2006

July 05, 2006

June 29, 2006

June 19, 2006

June 07, 2006

May 31, 2006

April 17, 2006

April 08, 2006

April 01, 2006

Recent Comments