Posting Towards Gomorrah

[SlaveNoMore]

Remember this, anytime you read a muslim says he prefers sharia to the rule of law in this country:

A Saudi court has sentenced a gang rape victim to 90 lashes of the whip because she was alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married.

The sentence was passed at the end of a trial in which the al- Qateef high criminal court convicted four Saudis convicted of the rape, sentencing them to prison terms and a total of 2,230 lashes. The four, all married, were sentenced respectively to five years and 1,000 lashes, four years and 800 lashes, four years and 350 lashes, and one year and 80 lashes.

A fifth, married, man who was stated to have filmed the rape on his mobile phone still faces investigation. Two others alleged to have taken part in the rape evaded capture.

Saudi courts take marital status into account in sexual crimes. A male friend of the rape victim was also sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone with her in the car.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Remember this, anytime you read a muslim says he prefers sharia to the rule of law in this country:

Isn't this the sort of thing your friends on the religious right would be OK with? I saw that Mitt was consulting with the evangelical right as he prepares his run, and I know you're a big fan of his.

[Spanky]

FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Mideast terror leaders
to U.S.: Vote Democrat
Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden
jihadists to destroy Israel, America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JERUSALEM – Everybody has an opinion about next Tuesday's midterm congressional election in the U.S. – including senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.


"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.

Jaara was the chief in Bethlehem of the Brigades, the declared "military wing" of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

Together with the Islamic Jihad terror group, the Brigades has taken responsibility for every suicide bombing inside Israel the past two years, including an attack in Tel Aviv in April that killed American teenager Daniel Wultz and nine Israelis.

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.

The terror leaders spoke as the debate regarding the future of America's war in Iraq has perhaps become the central theme of midterm elections, with most Democrats urging a timetable for withdrawal and Republicans mostly advocating staying the course in Iraq.

President Bush has even said he would send more troops if Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad, said they are needed to stabilize the region

The debate became especially poignant following remarks by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the 2004 presidential candidate who voted in support of the war in Iraq. Earlier this week he intimated American troops are uneducated, and it is the uneducated who "get stuck in Iraq."

Kerry, under intense pressure from fellow Democrats, now says his remarks were a "botched joke."

Terror leaders reject Nancy Pelosi's comments on Iraqi insurgency

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.

While the terror leaders each independently compelled American citizens to vote for Democratic candidates, not all believed the Democrats would actually carry out a withdrawal from Iraq.

Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the U.S."

Abu Abdullah commented once Democrats are in power "the question is whether such a courageous leadership can [withdraw]. I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so. I tell the American people vote for withdrawal. Abandon Israel if you want to save America. Now will this Happen? I do not believe it."

Still Jihad Jaara said the alternative is better than Bush's party.

"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Isn't this the sort of thing your friends on the religious right would be OK with? I saw that Mitt was consulting with the evangelical right as he prepares his run, and I know you're a big fan of his.

like Kerry, I take it this is a "botched" joke.

Speaking of jokes - here's a story on the NYT, who has outright lied about Kerry's remarks. This paper reached a new low each day:

The New York Times’s Kate Zernike runs interference for John Kerry on the topic of his controversial “stuck in Iraq” remarks — to the point of flatly misrepresenting to readers the content of the remarks.

The headline of the Times piece is Flubbed Joke Makes Kerry a Political Punching Bag, Again.

Before making the misrepresentation, Zernike engages in plenty of distortion. As the headline of her piece indicates, she swallows hook, line, and sinker Kerry’s proffered interpretation of the remarks as a “joke” — as if there were no doubt or controversy about that issue at all.

That’s bad enough. Look: I believe, on balance, that it probably was a botched joke. But John McCain disagrees. Tony Snow disagrees. A lot of our troops disagree.

There is a controversy. But Zernike chooses sides, as if it’s completely obvious that Kerry meant what he now claims.

But that’s not what makes this piece so outrageous.

It also completely buries any description of the actual remarks themselves. It is the eighteenth paragraph (!) before Zernike even alludes to the actual content of the remarks. There is plenty of discussion about the fallout from the remarks — but what did Kerry say? It takes eighteen paragraphs to even get to the issue. Amazingly, Zernike quotes praise for Kerry from a small-time lefty blogger before she gets around to telling us what the hell Kerry had said that was so controversial.

But that’s not what makes this piece so outrageous either.

What makes this piece so outrageous is that it flat-out lies about what Kerry said.

That’s right. I’ll repeat it, because it’s so jaw-dropping: in the piece linked above, the New York Times tells a straight lie about the actual content of Kerry’s remarks.

Once Zernike finally gets around to discussing what Kerry actually said, she claims:

Mr. Kerry’s prepared remarks to California students on Monday called for him to say, “Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.” In his delivery, he dropped the word “us.”

Really? He said “Just ask President Bush”?

Zernike is claiming that Kerry said:

Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.

Only that’s not even remotely what he said. If it were, then we wouldn’t be having this debate. The inclusion of “Just ask President Bush” — if Kerry had actually spoken that line — would have made it a no-brainer that Kerry meant this as an anti-Bush joke. An absolute no-brainer.

But that’s not what Kerry said. Here is what he did say:

You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

Period. Full stop.

There is no mention of President Bush whatsoever in that quote.

Are there still people on this planet who trust this newspaper?!?!

[Spanky]

Allen's Fumbles, Romney's Gain

By George Will

Even before the votes are counted, over the Republican Party a "thick darkness broodeth" — words from a Victorian hymn, for a party with a Victorian tendency. But one Republican, who is not running for anything this year, will emerge from this bruising season with enlarged prospects. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's hopes for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination have been enhanced by Virginia Sen. George Allen's difficulties.


Romney's most formidable rival for the Republican nomination is John McCain, who needs a crowded field of Republican aspirants to prevent the conservative majority of the party's nominating electorate from quickly coalescing around a single candidate. Allen once seemed likely to compete with Romney for conservatives' support.


But Allen, who makes no secret of finding life as a senator tedious, is fighting ferociously for another term, a fate from which his Democratic opponent, Jim Webb, is close to rescuing him. As a result, Allen is dabbling in literary criticism. He has read, or someone has read for him, at least some of Webb's six fine novels, finding therein sexual passages that have caused Allen — he of the football metaphors, cowboy regalia and Copenhagen smokeless tobacco — to blush like a fictional Victorian maiden and fulminate like an actual Victorian man, Anthony Comstock, the 19th-century scourge of sin who successfully agitated for New York and federal anti-obscenity statutes and is credited with the destruction of 160 tons of naughty printed matter and pictures.


Webb, a highly decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam combat, includes sexual scenes in his fictional depictions of young men far from home and close to combat, something about which he knows a lot and Allen does not. Allen says the scenes are demeaning to women and are evidence of flaws in Webb's character.


This ham-handed grab for women's votes may help Allen win but will not help him escape the perception that, as a presidential aspirant, he is problematic. His ragged campaign has made him seem accident-prone, and by Tuesday he probably will have burned through all the money he could raise. But to be competitive in the nomination contests that begin with the Iowa caucuses in January 2008, a candidate probably needs to have at least $60 million by December 2007. Allen would have to raise that amount in 60 weeks. A million dollars a week is a daunting challenge.


Allen's radically reduced prospects will make it less likely that McCain can duplicate his 2000 triumph in New Hampshire's primary. As one seasoned New Hampshire Republican says, "It is difficult to capture lightning in a bottle twice." It will be particularly difficult for McCain to do so because there is apt to be a spirited New Hampshire contest on the Democratic side. This would draw independent voters who were crucial to McCain in 2000, when he thrashed George W. Bush, receiving 115,606 votes (48.53 percent) to Bush's 72,330 (30.36).


But Bush won the Republican part of the Republican primary, in this sense: New Hampshire independents can vote in either party's primary, and 34 percent of McCain voters identified themselves as independents. A 41 percent plurality of the Republicans voting favored Bush, 38 percent favored McCain.


If one disregards President Harry Truman's brief interest in seeking a second full term in 1952 — he renounced running on March 29 — and the ineffectual attempt by his vice president, Alben Barkley, to secure the nomination, 2008 will be the first election in 56 years with neither an incumbent president nor vice president seeking a nomination. If you count the Truman and Barkley episodes, 2008 will be the first such election since 1928.


So the presidential field is uncommonly open, and there is a palpable desire in the country to shuffle the political deck. In their new book "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008," Mark Halperin of ABC News and John F. Harris of The Post suggest why:


"When the current President Bush completes his full second term, it will be the first time since James Madison and James Monroe almost two hundred years ago that back-to-back presidents both served all eight years of two elected terms. Put another way, two of the most divisive figures in this country's history will have commanded the White House for sixteen consecutive years."


Such circumstances should entice many aspirants into the race. Yet with Allen much diminished and perhaps out of contention, and with Rudy Giuliani not yet doing serious groundwork for a national campaign, the Republican field is already down to two. That is good for only one of them: Romney.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
like Kerry, I take it this is a "botched" joke.

Speaking of jokes - here's a story on the NYT, who has outright lied about Kerry's remarks. This paper reached a new low each day:

I am still waiting for Ty's extended version (the one we were supposed to just trust existed) that shows that Kerry was referring to Bush.

"You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

Ty: what words need to be added to this so the true meaning is clear? What is left out? Inquiring minds need to know? You mocked Hank and I for questioning that such lines exist. You couldn't believe that we would distrust Dick Armey (or what was alleged Dick Armey said).

We are waiting....

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Remember this, anytime you read a muslim says he prefers sharia to the rule of law in this country:

My boss was called to jury duty recently. She figured that she'd easily get out, but it was a domestic violence criminal case and half the pool was elminated because they were either victims of domestic violence or had family members that were.

It was a six person jury, with four women and one man. The victim had been pretty badly beaten, and all but one of the jurors were on board with throwing the book at the woman's husband. The sixth juror was a Pakistani man who insisted that if the woman had just given her husband the car keys like he'd asked, the whole incident wouldn't have happened and he couldn't convict someone for something that was partially the woman's fault. Four very, very pissed off women had to tell the judge that it was a hung jury.

That's as close as sharia law as I ever want to see happen in this country.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My boss was called to jury duty recently. She figured that she'd easily get out, but it was a domestic violence criminal case and half the pool was elminated because they were either victims of domestic violence or had family members that were.

It was a six person jury, with four women and one man. The victim had been pretty badly beaten, and all but one of the jurors were on board with throwing the book at the woman's husband. The sixth juror was a Pakistani man who insisted that if the woman had just given her husband the car keys like he'd asked, the whole incident wouldn't have happened and he couldn't convict someone for something that was partially the woman's fault. Four very, very pissed off women had to tell the judge that it was a hung jury.

That's as close as sharia law as I ever want to see happen in this country.

I guess the moral of that story is, if you are a prosecutor in a case that involves violence towards women you need to bounce all the male Muslim potential Jurors out.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am still waiting for Ty's extended version (the one we were supposed to just trust existed) that shows that Kerry was referring to Bush.

"You know, education — if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."

Ty: what words need to be added to this so the true meaning is clear? What is left out? Inquiring minds need to know? You mocked Hank and I for questioning that such lines exist. You couldn't believe that we would distrust Dick Armey (or what was alleged Dick Armey said).

We are waiting....

Insert the word "us" between "get" and "stuck." "If you don't [study hard and do your homework and make an effort to be smart,] you get us stuck in Iraq."

And just so we're clear what I mocked you for: I can believe that you would distrust Chris Matthews or Dick Armey. I just can't believe that you both would be so clueless as to respond to the suggestion that the full transcript of the remarks puts them in a different light by saying, "Oh yeah? Well if you look at only ten seconds, they look pretty bad." That's not mistrust, that's cluelessness.

In Hank's defense, he suggests that he was not posting the ten-second clip in response to what I said, but as a public service in response to the many requests he had received by PM and special conservative telepathy, and that it was simply a coincidence that he appeared to be clueless.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I guess the moral of that story is, if you are a prosecutor in a case that involves violence towards women you need to bounce all the male Muslim potential Jurors out.

Insofar as all male Muslims think alike, you must be correct.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I guess the moral of that story is, if you are a prosecutor in a case that involves violence towards women you need to bounce all the male Muslim potential Jurors out.

Half the jurors had been disqualified for having been victims or related to victims of domestic violence. I can't imagine that ALL of their batterers were male Muslims.

My first legal job was working at the Houston Area Women's Center* helping battered women through the legal system. Batterers come in all forms. White, black, Hispanic, Aisan, and Muslim, affluent, not so affluent. We didn't see one group any more than the others (though I worked mainly with the Hispanic women, since I spoke Spanish).

I think the moral of the story for prosecutors is to keep as many men off the panel as possible. Cuz you never know which one will use the "bitch had it coming" affirmative defense.

The moral of the story for RT is that she never, ever wants to work in domestic law again. It's waaaaaaay too depressing.

*Ellen Cohen, see discussion on Texas House District 134 race above, has been the executive director of this wonderful organization for the past dozen or so years. Martha Wong, before turning to a life of politics, was an interior decorator specializing in Fung Shui.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
like Kerry, I take it this is a "botched" joke.

Speaking of jokes - here's a story on the NYT, who has outright lied about Kerry's remarks. This paper reached a new low each day:

Wait. I don't really care that much about what Kerry said, other than to express amusement and frustration that he's trying to fuck up an election he's not even running in. But now I'm confused.

I've heard from several places now that the "ask Pres Bush" line was in Kerry's "prepared" remarks but that he fucked up the delivery.

If I understand it correctly, it sounds like your quoted source, whoever it is, is going batshit and conflating these two -- saying that NYT is asserting that Kerry actually said that.

Am I reading it wrong? Or is the idea that there were no "prepared" remarks, and that's where the NYT's treasonous lie, ... um ... lies?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So, after attacking the Dems for running ads showing flag-draped coffins, the RCCC is now running ads showing flag draped coffins.

So, the candidate they're trying to help is going to take a hit, and wants the things pulled.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Or is the idea that there were no "prepared" remarks, and that's where the NYT's treasonous lie, ... um ... lies?

Maybe this will make the Bilmore List of Traitorous Acts.


Since Spanky already explained, today, that Dems support terrorists.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In Hank's defense, he suggests that he was not posting the ten-second clip in response to what I said, but as a public service in response to the many requests he had received by PM and special conservative telepathy, and that it was simply a coincidence that he appeared to be clueless.

I was responding to the aid of the several people on your side who had fully developed opinions w/o having seen the clip. I suppose a few years ago I would have been shocked that educated people might form opinions w/o themselves having seen the clip, but my time here has shown me the truth- :it is a flow chart.

10 are you a Dem dullard besides Ty?
15 if yes, then if Ty says it is so, then he has proven it is so.
20 if 10 is no, then you are Ty and if some blogster says it is so, then it is so,
30 is the position completely unsupportable in the real world, or makes no sense, or cannot pass the smell test?
35 if 30 is yes, so what
39 if 30 is no, so what.