AP Writer Whines That Indonesia's "Detachment 88" Anti-Terror Force Is Too Violent With Islamic Terrorists

Cross posted from Holger Awakens


This AP writer must be vying for a job over at MSNBC or the New York Times as he whines and cries and rolls his little hands into balled fists describing just how mean and violent Indonesia's "Detachment 88" anti-terror force is to islamic terrorists in the country. That name, Detachment 88, is pretty cool in that it comes from a reference to the 88 Australians killed in the al Qaeda bombing in Bali years ago - a terror attack masterminded in and coming from Indonesia.

Anyway, let's look at some of this pathetic AP reporter's rambling and snot dripping outcries, from the article at Breitbart:

The anti-terror squad hurtled from a white van on a bustling street as their quarry—three terror suspects—stepped out of a taxi.
They shoved one to the ground and when he tried to shake free, shot him in the head. Another died from a bullet to the chest. The third was led away, his hands tied behind his back and his shirt covered in blood, only to turn up dead hours later.

That's not unusual in Indonesia, where U.S.-trained forces at the core of the anti-terror fight have a startling kill-to-capture ratio: One suspect killed for every four arrested.

The deaths not only raise human rights concerns, but risk fueling Islamist propaganda and tarnishing what has been a highly praised campaign that has seen hundreds of suspects arrested and convicted. The killings also mean the suspects cannot be questioned and there is no chance to gather intelligence on their networks.

However, witnesses of the May 12 operation in east Jakarta told The Associated Press that none of the three suspects appeared to carry a weapon or to put up much resistance.

Police deny that, saying they were armed and dangerous.

Oh, and what's a good Leftist propaganda story like this without some "eye witness" accounts of the horror inflicted on the poor terrorists (who more than likely just came from an IED bombing that killed and mutilated young children and women):

Dina, a 33-year-old cigarette vendor, said she watched as a police officer pounced on one of the men, who was wearing jeans and a striped T-shirt. When he tried to break free, another officer raised his gun and shot a single bullet into the suspect's head. He died in front of her, blood gushing from the wound.

"It was horrible," she said. "The sounds coming from his mouth reminded me of a goat being slaughtered."

Anti-terror police grabbed another man and, when he tried to get away, smashed a rock into his face, said Edi Suyatno, a bus conductor. The officers tied the suspect's hands behind his back with a black rope and threw him into the van, he and other witnesses told the AP.

"He was bleeding heavily ... but he was alive when he left here," Suyatno said.

Police later said that man, too, had been killed by a bullet wound sustained during the raid.

Now, I don't get it. Am I REALLY supposed to be outraged by this? Am I REALLY supposed to be sympathetic to islamic terrorists? Fuck 'em. I'd rather see the kill to capture rate go from 1 in 4 to 4 out of 4. These aren't human beings - these are wild animals, rabid animals, minions of Satan.

How many tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives to islamic terrorists over the past few years and this asswipe AP reporter actually expects his readers to shed a tear for the treatment of these murderers?

Only the diehard Communists at the keyboard of our media could try to pull this crap off - and all I can do is point it out to those who stumble upon my blog and hope that at least most of you see it for what it is...insanity.

Indonesia's anti-terror campaign under fire


JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) - The anti-terror squad hurtled from a white van on a bustling street as their quarry—three terror suspects—stepped out of a taxi.
They shoved one to the ground and when he tried to shake free, shot him in the head. Another died from a bullet to the chest. The third was led away, his hands tied behind his back and his shirt covered in blood, only to turn up dead hours later.

That's not unusual in Indonesia, where U.S.-trained forces at the core of the anti-terror fight have a startling kill-to-capture ratio: One suspect killed for every four arrested.

The deaths not only raise human rights concerns, but risk fueling Islamist propaganda and tarnishing what has been a highly praised campaign that has seen hundreds of suspects arrested and convicted. The killings also mean the suspects cannot be questioned and there is no chance to gather intelligence on their networks.

Indonesia was thrust into the front lines of the war on terror in 2002, when al-Qaida-linked nightclub bombings on the resort island of Bali killed 202 people, many of them tourists. There have been several attacks on Western targets since then, but all have been far less deadly—and the most recent was a year ago.

The country's elite Detachment 88 anti-terror unit has received much of the credit.

Named for the 88 Australians killed in the Bali bombings, the force has been at the forefront of the fight against terror. Its officers have taken on suspects holed up in houses booby-trapped with explosives. Other wanted men have been heavily armed, wearing suicide vests as they fired or threw shrapnel bombs from their hideouts.

However, witnesses of the May 12 operation in east Jakarta told The Associated Press that none of the three suspects appeared to carry a weapon or to put up much resistance.

Police deny that, saying they were armed and dangerous.

Authorities have identified only one of the suspects: Maulana, who was shot in the chest, was accused of involvement in a jihadi training camp in Aceh province and a failed plot on Indonesia's deputy house speaker, said National Police Chief Gen. Bambang Hendarso Danuri.

The other two men remain unidentified—and, it now appears, may have been implicated simply because they were riding with Maulana in the taxi. Police claim they were linked to the Aceh cell as well.

Dina, a 33-year-old cigarette vendor, said she watched as a police officer pounced on one of the men, who was wearing jeans and a striped T-shirt. When he tried to break free, another officer raised his gun and shot a single bullet into the suspect's head. He died in front of her, blood gushing from the wound.

"It was horrible," she said. "The sounds coming from his mouth reminded me of a goat being slaughtered."

Anti-terror police grabbed another man and, when he tried to get away, smashed a rock into his face, said Edi Suyatno, a bus conductor. The officers tied the suspect's hands behind his back with a black rope and threw him into the van, he and other witnesses told the AP.

"He was bleeding heavily ... but he was alive when he left here," Suyatno said.

Police later said that man, too, had been killed by a bullet wound sustained during the raid.

The two unidentified men were buried last week in a cemetery that is often used by the government for the homeless and other nameless victims, with simple stones marking their graves.

The only people in attendance were a few Muslim activists, who said the men deserved a proper Islamic burial. Maulana's body was returned to his village.

Munarman, a lawyer who often represents militants and is publicly sympathetic to their cause, questioned the police methods, especially when it came to the two unidentified men. He expressed outrage, saying a human rights tribunal should be set up to investigate "extra judicial killings."

"Police didn't even know their names!" he said. "These guys shot to kill. If they were worried, why didn't they just immobilize them, shoot them in the leg or shoulder?"

All major terror strikes in Indonesia since the 2002 Bali bombings have been blamed on a violent splinter group of Jemaah Islamiyah that was headed by Noordin Mohammad Top. He was shot dead in a Detachment 88 operation in September.

But no recent attack compared in scale to the Bali attacks, prompting diplomats, analysts and authorities to declare the fight against terrorism a success.

The arrests and convictions of suspects helped convince the public that Islamic militants were behind the violence.

Just as experts were saying Indonesia's threat level was significantly reduced, however, Detachment 88 discovered a previously unknown group in Aceh.

When black-clad forces raided a training camp in February in a barrage of gunfire that left three officers dead, they found a huge cache of M-16s, revolvers and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Investigations revealed the militants had been plotting a Mumbai-style terrorist attack and high-profile assassinations.

Many of the 84 suspects captured and 21 killed in the last year were linked to the Aceh group.

"In every case, when you kill someone, you lose valuable information," said Sidney Jones, an expert on Southeast Asian extremists.

She noted that Dulmatin, the region's most-wanted suspect before he was shot dead in a Jakarta Internet cafe three months ago, held key information about funding, training and cross-border links.

Photos taken of the 39-year-old bomb-making expert after the siege showed Dulmatin slumped over a computer with a pistol in his lap, prompting some critics to say he could have been taken alive by Detachment 88.

"There needs to be, at the very least, an internal review by the police of each case to determine if the threat justifies the shooting," Jones said.

Indonesia's security forces were accused of mass killings and widespread abuses during ex-dictator Suharto's 32-year reign. In 2005 the United States agreed to lift a trade embargo imposed over concerns about military human rights violations—partially to reward Indonesia's efforts to fight terrorism.

A government official who helps oversee the country's terror fight insisted there is no shoot-to-kill policy, as some Muslim activists have suggested.

"It is very difficult to take someone who could possibly be carrying an explosive vest and give him, as in the U.S., the Miranda rights," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

Still, he acknowledged that officers need more training in non-lethal methods. "But the money just isn't there."

Brig. Gen. Zainuri Lubis, deputy national police spokesman, said troops only use deadly force when there is no other option.

"We can't take any risks," he said. "When they fight us, we have to take action."

So, What DO Jihadis Learn at Islamic Terrorist Training Camps?

Cross posted from Holger Awakens

One of the real benefits of America's War on Terror ....you know, the strategy of George Bush where you take the fight TO the terrorists....not the appeasement of "man-caused disasters" put in place by Barack Hussein Obama....has been the fact that the Taliban and al Qaeda simply have not been able to run the elaborate jihadi training camps that they used to.

This article from The Foreign Policy Explainer, talks about the current state of affairs of islamic terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan and just what the suicide bombers of today are actually learning in today's version of a training camp:

First of all, today's terrorist training camps are not what they used to be. Sprawling al Qaeda camps complete with such amenities as firing ranges, like Tarnak Farms near Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is believed to have plotted the 9/11 attacks, are largely a thing of the past.

Today, al Qaeda outsources most of its training to Pakistani outfits like Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), the group believed to be behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The camps these groups run are often small, just one or two buildings, and temporary -- such groups stay on the move to avoid detection by satellite or intelligence agents.

Evenings are for indoctrination. It might seem strange that students enrolled in militant training would need further convincing, but local recruits are reportedly often cajoled or forced into attending by their families or madrasas. Recruits are shown hours upon hours of video depicting Western atrocities against Muslims to dispel any doubts about the cause of jihad.

As you'll see in the article, there is an inordinant amount of time spent further indoctrinating new jihadi recruits into the fevered hatred of the West and of all infidels. I guess this doesn't surprise me, in that we have seen in the theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan where the jihadis have run up against a U.S. force just too formidable and literally, the only thing that can keep the jihadis in the battle is a serious brainwashing. At the same time, we have to remember that many of the recruits are going to be asked to slap on a suicide belt and walk into a police station and blow themselves into a thousand pieces so it's not like that dude would need 12 weeks on AK-47 training.

What those calling for the end of our War on Terror operations don't understand is that there is a direct correlation between the size and degree of devastation with the relative solitude of jihadi training camps - when bin Laden had all the time and peace in the world in Afghanistan, he was able to prepare for 9/11 and when Lashkar-e-Taiba had relative peace in Pakistan at the time, they were able to train completely for Mumbai. Withdraw our troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, do away with our predator drones in Pakistan and you'll see the world hit by the same huge attacks once again.

What do you learn at terrorist training camp?


Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the failed plot to bomb New York City's Times Square, has told U.S. investigators that he received bomb-making training at a camp in Pakistan's Waziristan region. Given the botched, even amateurish nature of Shahzad's attempt -- he forgot to take the keys to his getaway car, for instance -- many observers are now asking: What exactly does one learn at a terrorist training camp?

First of all, today's terrorist training camps are not what they used to be. Sprawling al Qaeda camps complete with such amenities as firing ranges, like Tarnak Farms near Kandahar, Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is believed to have plotted the 9/11 attacks, are largely a thing of the past.

Today, al Qaeda outsources most of its training to Pakistani outfits like Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), the group believed to be behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The camps these groups run are often small, just one or two buildings, and temporary -- such groups stay on the move to avoid detection by satellite or intelligence agents. These groups are believed to be increasingly sharing resources when it comes to training. According to some estimates, there are about 40 militant training camps around Pakistan.

Enrolling in a militant training program is not easy, particularly for foreigners. Groups like the TTP, whose leadership has been decimated by U.S. drone strikes in recent months, are extremely wary of outsiders, believing that anyone who turns up looking for training could be a spy.

Five young American men learned this the hard way last December when they were picked up by Pakistani authorities after being rejected by several militant groups. However, wannabe jihadists of Pakistani descent, like Shahzad, can improve their odds of enrolling by having a relative or friend vouch for them. Insurgent groups with Western connections, like the so-called "German Taliban," are also believed to vet potential recruits from abroad.

Assuming you meet the entrance requirements -- Pakistani security officials say camps train only about 20 recruits at a time -- the curriculum can vary.

A typical day will begin with morning prayers, followed by a sermon on the significance of jihad. Physical drills and operational training take place during the day. Instructors are typically veteran jihadists, although in groups like LET or the Kashmiri nationalist organization Jaish-e-Mohammed, former members of Pakistan's intelligence services are also believed to have been on the faculty.

Evenings are for indoctrination. It might seem strange that students enrolled in militant training would need further convincing, but local recruits are reportedly often cajoled or forced into attending by their families or madrasas. Recruits are shown hours upon hours of video depicting Western atrocities against Muslims to dispel any doubts about the cause of jihad.

Typically recruits are given lessons on how to handle small arms such as AK-47s and PK machine guns as well as rocket-propelled grenades, tactics for attacking military convoys, and instructions for planting mines. Pre-2001 al Qaeda camps also trained their recruits on sniper rifles and mortars, but this is rarer today. Students found to be quicker learners are given more specialized training in skills such as bomb-making or operational security.

Relatively few foreigners have gone through the camps, and groups like the TTP rarely attack targets outside Pakistan or Afghanistan, so it's difficult to know what kind of specialized training Shahzad might have received or why he seemed so unprepared for his mission. One theory has it that Shahzad was trying to prove his loyalty in order to gain access to the movement and receive more advanced operational training.

In any evident, despite ample evidence of its involvement, the TTP doesn't seem too anxious to claim the would-be bomber as one of its alumni.

Ten reasons why Sharia Law is bad for all societies

This from American Thinker, back on April 13th 2005. Sharia law is just plain down right, dirty, rotten, bad. It oppresses women, minorities, other religions, children, freedom of thought for the individual. Islam and Islamic sharia law strips away all human dignity. Sudan is good example of sharia law in our current world. Music was banned in Sudan last week by the ruling sharia council. As I stated; strips away all human dignity.

---

Stoning victim in Sudan

Ten reasons why Sharia Law is bad for all societies
By James Arlandson

Traditional Muslims who understand the Quran and the hadith believe that sharia (Islamic law) expresses the highest and best goals for all societies. It is the will of Allah.

But is Islam just in its laws that Muhammad himself practiced and invented? This article says no for ten verifiable reasons.

Here are four points you must read, before reading this article:

First, sometimes these ten points quote the Quran or omit it; sometimes they quote the hadith (reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran) or omit it. This is done only to keep down the length of the article. No one should be fooled into believing that these harsh and excessive laws were invented in the fevered imagination of extremists who came long after Muhammad.

These harsh and excessive laws come directly from the founder of Islam in his Quran and in his example in the hadith.

Second, each of these ten reasons has a back—up article (or more) that is long and well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. The supporting articles also examine the historical and literary context of each Quranic verse. If the readers, especially critics, wish to challenge one or all of these ten reasons, or if they simply doubt them, they should click on the supporting articles. They will see that Muhammad himself actually laid down these excessive punishments and policies.

Third, it must be pointed out that these harsh laws are not (or should not be) imposed outside of an Islamic court of law. Careful legal hurdles must be passed before the punishments are carried out. However, even in that case, it will become clear to anyone who thinks clearly that these punishments and policies are excessive by their very nature, and excess is never just, as Aristotle taught us in his Nicomachean Ethics.

Fourth, in each of the lengthy supporting article (or articles), a Biblical view on these infractions of moral law (or sometimes civil law or personal injuries) is presented. One of the reasons we all sense that these Islamic punishments are harsh and excessive is that Christianity has also filled the globe. Even if one is not a Christian or is only a nominal Christian, he or she has breathed deeply of Christianity by virtue of laws and customs or even driving by churches. New Testament Christianity, when properly understood and followed, offers humanity dignity.

'Islam' in this article stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars.

Here are ten reasons why sharia or Islamic law is bad for all societies.

10. Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.

In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex, but also for drinking alcohol.

In 2005, in Nigeria a sharia court ordered that a drinker should be caned eighty strokes.

In 2005, in the Indonesian province of Aceh, fifteen men were caned in front of a mosque for gambling. This was done publicly so all could see and fear. Eleven others are scheduled to undergo the same penalty for gambling.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91; they do not prescribe the punishment of flogging, but the hadith does. A poor 'criminal' was brought to Muhammad who became angry:

The Prophet felt it hard (was angry) and ordered all those who were present in the house, to beat him [the drinker dragged into Muhammad's presence]. (Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6774—6775)

Thus, we see no offer of help for the alcoholic when he is dragged before Muhammad and his followers. Why does Muhammad not offer rehabilitation? Why does he immediately go to corporal punishment?

The later classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith, so we do not need to examine them here.

It is sometimes argued that Islamic countries are pure, whereas the West is decadent. No one can argue with this latter claim, but are Islamic countries pure? The Supplemental Material, below, demonstrates that Islamic countries still have drinking and gambling in them.

9. Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.

In 2004, Rania al Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)
The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:
Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his child girl bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:
'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.'

It is claimed that Islamic societies have fewer incidents of fornication and adultery because of strict laws or customs, for example, women wearing veils over their faces or keeping separate from men in social settings. But these results of fewer incidents of sexual 'crimes' may have unanticipated negative effects in other areas, such as the oppression of women. Generally, sharia restricts women's social mobility and rights, the more closely sharia is followed.
For example, in conservative Saudi Arabia women are not allowed to drive cars. In Iran, the law oppresses women. For example, women's testimony counts half that of men, and far more women than men are stoned to death for adultery.

8. Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.

In 2003, in Saudi Arabia a man had two teeth extracted under the law of retaliation.

In 2003, a court in Pakistan sentenced a man to be blinded by acid after he carried out a similar attack on his fiance.

In 2005, an Iranian court orders a man's eye to be removed for throwing acid on another man and blinding him in both eyes.

The Quran says:
5:45 And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers . . .). (Hilali and Khan, The Noble Qur'an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 1996)

This passage allows for an indemnity or compensation instead of imposing the literal punishment of eye for an eye. No one should have a quarrel with this option. According to the hadith, the plaintiff also has the option to forgive, and this is legitimate, provided a judge oversees the process. The problem is the literal law of retaliation.

The hadith and later legal rulings demonstrate that this excessive option was actually carried out, as do the three modern examples linked above.
Islamic law calls all of humanity to march backwards 1,400 years BC and to re—impose the old law of retaliation—literally, and the evidence suggest that the Torah never intended the law to be carried out literally, as the supporting article demonstrates.

7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.

The reader should never lose sight of the fact that this punishment is prescribed in the Quran, the eternal word of Allah. It does not exist only in the fevered imagination of a violent and sick radical regime like the Taliban.

The Quran says:
5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

At first glance, verse 39 seems to accept repentance before the thief's hand is cut off. But the hadith states emphatically that repentance is acceptable only after mutilation. Muhammad himself says that even if his own daughter, Fatima, were to steal and then intercede that her hand should not be cut off, he would still have to cut it off (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6788)

6. Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

In September 2003, Scotsman Sandy Mitchell faced crucifixion in Saudi Arabia. He was beaten and tortured until he confessed to a crime he did not commit: a bomb plot masterminded by the British embassy. The article says of this punishment that it is the worst kind of execution and that two have been carried out in the last twenty years.

In 2002 Amnesty International reports that even though Saudi Arabia ratified the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention against Torture) in October 1997, amputation is prescribed under both Hudud (punishments) and Qisas (law of retaliation). AI has recorded thirty—three amputations and nine cross—amputations where the alternate hand or foot is mutilated.

(In 2008, Palestine introduced Crucifixtion as a punishment for Christians committing capitol crimes)

The Quran says:
5:33 Those who wage war against God and His Messenger and strive to spread corruption in the land should be punished by death, crucifixion, the amputation of an alternate hand and foot or banishment from the land: a disgrace for them in this world, and then a terrible punishment in the Hereafter, 34 unless they repent before you overpower them: in that case bear in mind that God is forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)

It may be difficult to accept, but the hadith says that Muhammad tortured these next people before he executed them. This scenario provides the historical context of Sura 5:33—34. The explanations in parentheses have been added by the translator:

Narrated Anas: Some people . . . came to the Prophet and embraced Islam . . . [T]hey turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away . . . The Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they died. (Bukhari, Punishments, no. 6802)

The next hadith reports that the renegades died from bleeding to death because Muhammad refused to cauterize their amputated limbs. Then the hadith after that one reports that the renegades were not given water, so they died of thirst. They probably died of both causes: thirst and loss of blood.

Islamic law says that these punishments are imposed for highway robbery, and in some cases crucifixion does not need a murder before it is imposed.

5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed.

In February 1998, the Taliban of Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for 'gay conduct.'

These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad's punishment of homosexuals: . . .

'If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done' (Abu Dawud no. 4447).
This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God's messenger as saying, 'Accursed is he who does what Lot's people did.' In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

Though this punishment of a wall being toppled on them is extreme, the Taliban were merely following the origins of their religion.

4. Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Fornication:
In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging for illicit sex.

The Quran says:
24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).

The additions in the brackets, though not original to the Arabic, have the support of the hadith. These command flogging only of unmarried fornicators: Bukhari, Punishments, nos. 6831 and 6833.
The classical legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

According to a report, in Iran a teenage boy broke his Ramadan fast, so a judge sentenced him to be lashed with eighty five stripes. He died from the punishment. Though his sad case does not deal with fornication, it is cited here because it shows that lashing can be fatal.

Adultery:

In December 2004, Amnesty International reports:
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co—defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging.

Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.

She is to be buried up to her chest and stoned to death.

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death:
And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)

The Prophet prayed over her dead body and then buried her. Truthfully, though, how effective was the prayer when Muhammad and his community murdered her in cold blood? The rest of the hadith says that Muhammad told Khalid not to be too harsh, but the Prophet's words drip with irony.

Perhaps Muhammad meant that Khalid should not have cursed her. However, if they really did not want to be harsh, they should have forgiven her and let her go to raise her child.

Later Islamic legal rulings follow the Quran and the hadith closely, so we do not need to analyze them here.

3. Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

In 1989, Iran's Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel's role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed the fatwa.

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia's vilification law. While on trial, one of them wanted to read from the Quran on domestic violence, but the lawyer representing the Council would not allow it. The pastors are appealing their conviction.

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England's parliament. They have succeeded. Their ability to propagandize has not been curtailed. Opponents of the law say that it stifles free speech that may criticize Muhammad, the Quran, and Islam.

Here are the classical legal rulings.

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about 'Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat'; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or 'anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it'; (4) holding that 'any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent'; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended 'the Prophet's message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.'

It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars' head.

The non—Muslims living under Islamic rule are not allowed to do the following (p. 609, o11.10(1)—(5)):

(1) Commit adultery with a Muslim woman or marry her; (2) conceal spies of hostile forces; (3) lead a Muslim away from Islam; (4) mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam.
According to the discretion of the caliph or his representative, the punishments for violating these rules are as follows: (1) death, (2) enslavement, (3) release without paying anything, and (4) ransoming in exchange for money. These punishments also execute free speech—even repulsive speech—and freedom of religion or conscience.

Ultimately, censorship testifies to a lack of confidence in one's position and message. If the message of Islam were truly superior, one could trust in the power of truth. As it stands, sharia with its prescribed punishments for questioning Muhammad, the Quran, and sharia itself testifies to their weakness since sharia threatens those who dare to differ.

How confident was Muhammad (and today's Muslims) in his message that he had to rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation?

2. Islam orders apostates to be killed.

In Iran an academic was condemned to death for criticizing clerical rule in Iran. The rulers assert that he was insulting Muhammad and Shi'ite laws. He was charged with apostasy.

Apostates are those who leave Islam, like Salman Rushdie, whether they become atheists or convert to another religion. They are supposed to be killed according to the Quran, the hadith, and later legal rulings.

Sayyid Maududi, a respected Islamic scholar, in this booklet argues that Sura 9:11—12 refers to apostates and that they should be put to death (scroll down to 'The Proof in the Quran for the Commandment to Execute Apostates').

1. Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad.

Muhammad is foundational to Islam, and he set the genetic code for Islam, waging war. In the ten years that he lived in Medina from his Hijrah (Emigration) from Mecca in AD 622 to his death of a fever in AD 632, he either sent out or went out on seventy four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars.

They range from small assassination hit squads to kill anyone who insulted him, to the Tabuk Crusades in late AD 630 against the Byzantine Christians.

He had heard a rumor that an army was mobilizing to invade Arabia, but the rumor was false, so his 30,000 jihadists returned home, but not before imposing a jizya tax on northern Christians and Jews.

Money flowed into the Islamic treasury. So why would Muhammad get a revelation to dry up this money flow?

What are some of the legalized rules of jihad found in the Quran, hadith, and classical legal opinions?

(1) Women and children are enslaved. They can either be sold, or the Muslims may 'marry' the women, since their marriages are automatically annulled upon their capture.

(2) Jihadists may have sex with slave women. Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, did this.

(3) Women and children must not be killed during war, unless this happens in a nighttime raid when visibility was low.

(4) Old men and monks could be killed.

(5) A captured enemy of war could be killed, enslaved, ransomed for money or an exchange, freely released, or beaten. One time Muhammad even tortured a citizen of the city of Khaybar in order to extract information about where the wealth of the city was hidden.

(6) Enemy men who converted could keep their property and small children.
This law is so excessive that it amounts to forced conversion. Only the strongest of the strong could resist this coercion and remain a non—Muslim.

(7) Civilian property may be confiscated.

(8) Civilian homes may be destroyed.

(9) Civilian fruit trees may be destroyed.

(10) Pagan Arabs had to convert or die. This does not allow for the freedom of religion or conscience.

(11) People of the Book (Jews and Christians) had three options (Sura 9:29): fight and die; convert and pay a forced 'charity' or zakat tax; or keep their Biblical faith and pay a jizya or poll tax.

The last two options mean that money flows into the Islamic treasury, so why would Muhammad receive a revelation to dry up this money flow?

Thus, jihad is aggressive, coercive, and excessive, and Allah never revealed to Muhammad to stop these practices.

Therefore, Islam is violent, unjustly and aggressively.

Conclusion

The nightmare must end. Sharia oppresses the citizens of Islamic countries. Islam must reform, but the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations will not do this because the judges and legal scholars understand the cost: many passages in the Quran and the hadith must be rejected, and this they cannot do.

After all, the Quran came down directly from Allah through Gabriel, so says traditional theology.

So how can Islam reform? But reform it must. It can start by rewriting classical fiqh (interpretations of law). Again, though, that would mean leaving behind the Quran and Muhammad's example. How can the legal hierarchy in Islamic nations do this?

In contrast, the West has undergone the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason (c. 1600—1800+), so western law has been injected with a heavy dose of reason. Also, the New Testament tempers excessive punishments. At least when Christianity reformed (c. 1400—1600), the reformers went back to the New Testament, which preaches peace and love. So religion and reason in the West permit justice to be found more readily—the Medieval Church is not foundational to Christianity; only Jesus and the New Testament are.

Can Islamic countries benefit from an Enlightenment that may deny the Quran and the hadith? This seems impossible. Islamic law threatens Muslims with death if they criticize Muhammad and the Quran, not to mention denying them.

Since Islamic law cannot be reformed without doing serious damage to original and authentic Islam—the one taught by Muhammad—then a second plan must be played out. Sharia must never spread around the world. At least that much is clear and achievable. The hard evidence in this article demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments.

It is true that the Enlightenment teaches tolerance, but it also teaches critical thinking and reasoning. Sharia cannot stand up under scrutiny. It is intolerant and excessive, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics teaches the West that excess is never just.

Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.

SIOA: A Confluence of Folly(Part two)

Here is the second part of A Confluence of Folly from SIOA. Please just read
both parts if you have not already read the first. The battle is against Islam as a whole.



"The idea that Islamic terrorism, violence and hate against Americans is poverty-driven, or a response to some particular American foreign policy (cf. support of Israel, another frontline state in the jihad war) is now clearly debunked after the most recent attack by a wealthy, privileged Islamic terrorist. Islamic terror is motivated by Islamic doctrine; we are the target because we exist.

The adherents of Islamic doctrine attack us because they hate us, they hate us simply because we exist. El Al takes security very seriously, we Americans do not; Israel is very successful with airline security because they ask questions and are not concerned with ridiculous politically correct self-censorship. Relying entirely on technology and ignoring the human component of a potential attacker has already failed."



We live in a time of the confluence of dangerous cultural, intellectual, ethical, moral, and political failures. At a time when American exceptionalism and importance should be encouraged and understood across the country and the world it is diminished instead. When American jobs and livelihoods should be protected and made safe they are undermined by open porous borders and an immigration policy that is neither a proper national policy nor of benefit to newcomers or citizens.

We live in a time when security considerations are built upon absurd concepts of extreme tolerance and a total aversion to cause offense to anyone most particularly those who may be threats. We live in a time of rampaging folly.

We live in a time shaped by definitive concepts of good and evil and right and wrong; there are those who do not share our concepts and hate us for the ideals that we embrace. We are hated because we are not Islamic and we are hated because we help Islam, but never enough. There is no unifying this contradiction as we always remain kafirs to the Islamic umma. No matter how much we help, no matter how “good” we are, the adherents of Islam fight us as they are commanded to do so by Allah and Mohammed.

So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour. (Koran, 25:52)

There is bliss across the world at our American failures to acknowledge the truth and tears of frustration here at home at our continuing failure to speak the truth and to fight the enemy and his totalitarian ideology. We fought a devastating civil war over a century ago to end slavery; let us not overturn the results of that struggle by denying that slavery is our future if we do not once again unite in the concepts that have given us the finest country, the light unto the world, so far seen on this planet.


Continue reading part two

Confluence of Folly(Part one)

Islamobama and his own Stealth Jihad. It can and will get worse.

I am posting this from China Confidential. There is not much
I could add to this and will let it speak for itself. Every
word is true and Obama is rightly raked over the coals. He is
an Islamosympathizer in the worst way we could have imagined.





On 9/12, who could have imagined Barack Hussein Obama's ascent to the White House?


Since taking office, America's first Muslim-born (according to Islamic law) Third World-American (his Muslim father was a Kenyan socialist) President has made engagement (appeasement and accommodation) of Islamist nations and groups the central feature of his foreign policy. BHO has given Islamist Iran an additional year to develop nuclear weapons, while warning Israel against attacking Iran and relentlessly pressuring the Jewish State to withdraw to indefensible borders in order to make possible the formation of an Islamist-ruled terror state with East Jerusalem as its capital; embraced the Islamist idea of a so-called Muslim world, transcending political boundaries, race, and ethnicity, united by belief in "the holy Koran," which he delights in quoting; bowed to the Saudi King, deeply and submissively, like a Muslim servant; apologized for alleged American sins against Muslim and other Third World nations; reached out to Islamist terrorist and front groups at home and abroad, including the Foreign Terrorist Organizations Hamas and Hezbollah, which initially welcomed his election, and allegedly "reconcilable" elements of the resurgent Taliban; and downgraded the War on Terror to a law enforcement battle with Al Qaeda--the only Islamist group that is for the time being still beyond the pale of engagement--by (a) deciding to bring 9/11 mastermind KSM and other alien enemy combatant war criminals to New York City for a civilian court trial, and (b) referring to terrorists as "extremists" and "suspects" and to Islamist terrorist acts as "manmade disasters."

Obama has also wildly exaggerated the size of the U.S. Muslim population in order to increase its importance; falsely claimed that Islam helped "shape" the nation; crawled to Turkey's crypto-Islamist, Iran-backing government and supported its bid for EU membership, and backed burqa-wearing in France and a menacing European-Mediterranean pact that promises to flood the Continent with 50 million additional Muslims from North Africa.

Most recently, Obama has refused to "connect the dots" between the Fort Hood massacre, the slaughter of CIA employees in Afghanistan, and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner bound for (Islamist-friendly) Detroit, and between his administration's insane insistence on differentiating between visa-eligible, alien Islamist "extremists" and visa-ineligible--no-fly--"terrorists" and the equally insane decision to treat the aforementioned airline attacker--a Nigerian Islamist--as a criminal "suspect," entitled to a civilian court trial, a public defender, and a plea arrangement.

It is time for U.S. voters to connect the dots ... between a perfidious, possible plea bargain with an Islamist terrorist and an even more perfidious Grand Bargain that Obama desperately sought with nuclear-arming Iran ... to pacify Pakistan (which Obama pronounces like a Pakistani) and Afghanistan (which he strangely still pronounces like a Midwesterner) ... and face up to the fact that the U.S. has a President who is ideologically, philosophically ... and perhaps also mentally and emotionally ... incapable of defending the world's greatest democracy and last, best hope for civilization.


Thanks to China Confidential

Islamic Terrorists cause Russian train wreck?

Russian Train Wreck Tied to Terrorist Bomb
New York Times

 BYCLIFFORD J. LEVY and ELLEN BARRY

Published: November 28, 2009
MOSCOW — The cause of the crash of one of Russia’s most illustrious trains was identified on Saturday as a homemade bomb that went off on the tracks between Moscow and St. Petersburg, killing more than 25 people, wounding scores of others and raising fears of a new era of terrorism here.

How long until this happens in the United States?

Another gift to the world from radical Islamists
who think nothing of killing innocent people.




Officials called the explosion on Friday night the worst terrorist attack in Russia in years, outside volatile Muslim parts of the North Caucasus region, which includes Chechnya. There were no immediate credible claims of responsibility.

The force of the crash crumpled parts of the luxury train, propelling several of its 14 cars off the tracks, trapping passengers in smashed compartments and scattering luggage in the nearby woods.

People on the train described a scene of panic and devastation in a rural area that was difficult for rescuers to reach.

The train, the Nevsky Express, is a preferred means of travel for the Russian elite between the country’s two most important cities. Among the dead were a former senator and a senior official in the federal economics ministry.

At the attack site, 200 miles northwest of Moscow, investigators reported Saturday that they had found remnants of a homemade bomb, equivalent to 15 pounds of TNT, that left a crater five feet deep. The bomb was apparently planted on the tracks and detonated while the second half of the train was passing.

Vladimir I. Yakunin, president of Russian Railways, said: “The basic version that is being investigated by the lead investigators is that it was an unknown device, by unknown persons. Simply put, a terrorist act.”

Mr. Yakunin said a second, less powerful explosive went off Saturday at the site of the crash. No one was hurt.

On Saturday night, federal investigators were going house to house in the area around the crash, asking residents whether they had noticed anyone or anything suspicious recently.

Russia suffered a wave of attacks in the early part of the decade as Muslim separatists from Chechnya struck trains and public places in Moscow and elsewhere, but there have been no such deadly assaults in recent years.

However, another Nevsky Express train was derailed in 2007 by an explosion, wounding more than two dozen people. While two people were later arrested, their motive remains unclear.

On Saturday, all rail service between Moscow and St. Petersburg, 450 miles away, was temporarily suspended, and there were widespread reports that Russians were canceling trips out of concern over possible attacks.

In nationally televised remarks, President Dmitri A. Medvedev called for calm. “We need there to be no chaos, because the situation is tense as it is,” the president said.

Victims spoke of disarray soon after the crash, with rescuers delayed in arriving and then lacking equipment to extract people from the railway cars, according to interviews on Russian television. They said it was several hours before proper equipment arrived.

At a hospital in St. Petersburg, a passenger, Igor Pushkaryov, 32, who suffered minor injuries, said in an interview that he had been in the second car on the train.

“It felt like we hit something, something hard,” Mr. Pushkaryov said. “Then everything began to shake because the wheel was rolling on the railroad ties. The car fell on its side and turned over. When we fell, the lights went out. We slid for a time, then suddenly stopped.”

A passenger named Igor Pechnikov told the Channel One television network, “I was riding in one of the cars that derailed. There was a jolt, and the car started sliding sharply to the left. I was thrown from my seat and flew halfway down the car.”

Another passenger, Tatyana Yeryomina, said: “Three of us went into the corridor to chat, when suddenly the lights went out and we fell to the floor. We were able to group together, which saved us. There was a huge hole in our car and we realized that something catastrophic had happened.”

When a frantic dispatcher reached the train after the derailment, the engineer described confusion.

“There is smoke everywhere,” the engineer said, according to a recording played on television. “The locomotive is damaged. Everything is torn apart in my cabin.”

The train was carrying more than 650 passengers and 20 railway personnel during its regular run to St. Petersburg, which takes four and a half hours.

On Saturday, Yekaterina Ivanova, one of the wounded passengers, told the NTV network that the evacuation was frustratingly slow.

“In the hospital, the doctors are better, the medical teams are working in harmony,” she said. “The young people from the Ministry of Emergency Situations carried us out on stretchers, but other people in uniform were just standing there and staring, and no one was even helping to carry out the wounded.”

How well prepared is Amtrak to respond to a disaster like this?

Russian Train Derailment Ms. Ivanova said rescue personnel did not manage to extract her from the train until 1:30 a.m., nearly four hours after the derailment.

Medical workers reported that reaching the scene was complicated because it was far from major highways.

Nadezhda Milyukova, the lead emergency doctor, told NTV: “There are only country roads, with huge ditches and puddles. You need all-terrain vehicles for those roads.”

Victims’ relatives told television networks that government hot lines did not function well, and that when they got through, there was little information.

“When we asked for some contact phone numbers, the lady told us that it didn’t fall within her job description,” a relative said.

Hundreds of passengers who survived the crash were moved onto a high-speed train and taken to St. Petersburg, arriving at 3:30 a.m. on Saturday. Several were in shock, and nearly all refused to speak about what had happened.

Police officers surrounded the platform, and ambulances pulled up to the train cars. Oleg Salov, a senior emergency situations official, said psychologists were meeting with relatives of the dead and wounded.

One of the train’s cafe cars was turned into a center for first aid and psychological assistance, and many passengers went there instead of home.

For Russians, the attack on Friday night may have been reminiscent of terrorist acts that stirred unease across the country earlier in the decade, when Muslim separatists from Chechnya made passenger trains, subways and other public places targets.

A 2003 suicide bomb attack on a commuter train near Chechnya killed 44. At least 12 people were wounded in 2005 when a bomb derailed a train headed from Chechnya to Moscow. And in 2002, more than 100 hostages died in a rescue attempt after Chechen terrorists seized a theater in the heart of Moscow.

In interviews at railway stations on Saturday night, some travelers expressed concern about future attacks, while others shrugged off possible danger.

Is the Obama administration ready for something like this?

They have handled the Flu Pandemic so well, it gives many of us

zero confidence in the Obama admisnistration.

“Am I scared of traveling to St. Petersburg tonight? Yes, very much!” said a middle-aged woman named Valentina, who declined to give her last name while waiting at a Moscow station. “I purchased my tickets yesterday afternoon, before the catastrophe happened. If it weren’t for the health of my relative, I wouldn’t have come here.”

She started crying. “This problem is not easily solved,” she said. “And this train bombing might be a first terror attack in a chain.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/europe/29russia.html?ref=world