Taliban Barbarians Hit The Wrong Gate
Roy Nordland and Jawad Sukhanyar write for The New York Times that the Taliban meant to attack an unprotected Christian daycare center in Kabul, Afghanistan, but...oops!...
They mistakenly burst into the compound next door, where an American government contractor's employees were heavily armed and ready, according to accounts that the contractor and the Afghan police gave on Friday of a wild four-hour shootout here.The contractor, Roots of Peace, which runs agricultural projects financed by the United States Agency for International Development, had taken the precaution of blocking its front gate with an armored Land Cruiser, which guards used to take cover behind and shoot at the attackers, said Gary Kuhn, the group's president, interviewed by telephone from its headquarters in San Rafael, Calif.
That slowed the attackers enough for the guards and the five foreign residents to retreat into the house and upstairs. "There's a circular staircase which is very hard to take cover on. One tried coming up it, and the guard shot him," Mr. Kuhn said, citing accounts from his staff members in Kabul.
While the gun battle was underway, next door, at what apparently had been the Taliban's intended target, a Christian-run day care center that had no armed guards and normally left its front door open, police were able to rescue two dozen foreigners, according to Gen. Mohammad Ayub Salangi, the deputy interior minister, who went to the scene. Their nationalities were unclear but they appeared to be Americans or Europeans.
The friend who sent this to me wrote, "What sick fucks attack a day care center?"
The myth: Mohammed never killed children. The truth?
Muhammad drew a distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim children and implied that it would be permissible to kill a child who has no prospect of accepting Islam...
More on this myth here, and more here on how the Quran allows for the raping of married women taking captive by Muslims. Plus:
As further support that Islam condones the murder of women and children just think about the law of apostasy. In Islam, if a person decides to apostatize then that individual must either revert or be killed. This includes any sane man, woman or child who has reached the age of rationality....3. Concluding Analysis
Our examination has led us to discover that there isn't a single, explicit Quranic reference which prohibits the killing of women and children. The language of the Quran strongly supports the position that even the women and children of the unbelievers are to be targeted in jihad.
The Quran uses inclusive language when commanding Muslims to attack infidels, the people of the Book etc. The Quran doesn't qualify such statements by saying to attack or fight only their men, or by expressly prohibiting any attacks on the women and children.
There are certain references where Muhammad curses women and children, and where a supposed unnamed servant of Allah killed a young boy on the suspicions that he may have turned out to be an evildoer (cf. 3:61; 18:74, 80).
The Islamic narrations and Sira literature provide ample evidence supporting the unjust killing of women and children, i.e. women poetesses and singers are brutally murdered, young boys are beheaded, old men and women are brutally massacred etc.
When we turned our attention to the Muslim scholars we found some of them condoning and justifying homicide bombings and the brutal killing of women and children.
Basically, our investigation has led us to conclude that Islam does permit and condone the brutal murdering of women and children, as well as the bombing of innocent civilians and noncombatants.
Homosexuality, in Islam, will also get you death.
Wrong address? Has a GPS system failed again?
Apparently, the attack started with a suicide bomber bowing up a bomb-laden truck - to little or no effect. As the fight continued three of the remaining four attackers blew themselves up, while the other was shot before he could do so. On a one-to-ten scale, rates about minus twenty.
-----
Side note about death penalty for [male] homosexuals: this was law in the UK, and thus much of the Empire, until very late in Queen Victoria's reign. Jail was still law, though other possibilities (such as the "chemical castration" applied to Turing) remained. Even today in the USA, "sodomy" (which can be heterosexual, after all) is still a major felony in many places.
John A at March 29, 2014 10:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/03/29/barbarians_hit.html#comment-4439295">comment from John AYes, but there's one arena -- the Islamic one -- where being gay, or even just being accused of it, gets you dead. (While little boys are molested by jihadists and others and this is excused. Sick.)
Amy Alkon
at March 29, 2014 10:31 AM
No it isn't. The remaining laws were struck down by SCOTUS in the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003.
Jim P. at March 29, 2014 10:36 AM
Ironically these days while the age of consent for PinV sex is lower than 16 in nearly half of all legal jurisdictions the age of consent for hand jobs and blow job is 18, and taking pictures as high as 21.
Also, what is the point of moral comparisons between christians 300 years ago and muslims today?
lujlp at March 29, 2014 7:50 PM
I have to say, I find the U.S. age of consent laws puzzling. After all, if you're the parent of a daughter who's 17, in all likelihood, you don't want it to be legal for a 25-year-old to get involved with her. If you're the parent of a son who's 17 or younger, wouldn't you want to be able to argue, at least (even if it doesn't work in the short run) that an older woman who seduces him should not get child support because it was statutory rape?
I realize, of course, that it gets WAY too complicated when both parties are under the age of consent, whatever that is in a certain state. But as I've said before, I believe that if the younger party is under 17 and there's a four-year gap or more, that should automatically be a crime on some level. We have better things to do than to protect people from their own ignorance of the law, even when the older party happens to be a minor.
lenona at March 30, 2014 11:05 AM
To clarify my first paragraph: In some states, the age of consent is 13, IIRC. For girls, anyway!
Unless they've raised the age everywhere in the last ten years.
lenona at March 30, 2014 11:07 AM
According to this, there is no state in the U.S. that has an age of consent under 16. I don't know how long this has been true. I know that in Tennessee at one time the age of consent was 13 under certain circumstances, but I think that was changed decades ago.
Cousin Dave at March 30, 2014 12:09 PM
In 1986, according to this Ann Landers column, the age of consent in New Mexico was 13.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19860513&id=IqlOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aPsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6650,5763947
In it, a NM senator says there was a case where a 13-year-old girl that age was involved with a 40-year-old man against her parents' wishes - and there was nothing the authorities could do about it.
However, the laws seem to have been changed since then. My question, I guess, is: Why WAS the age of consent ever that low, given the factors I mentioned previously - and when was the age raised in various states?
Here's how laws currently stand, according to one 2011(?) source at Yahoo:
"As others have stated, the age of consent in New Mexico is 17. Here's a breakdown as to how the close-in-age provisions work:
"Persons who are at least age 13 and less than 18 may have sex with other persons who are at least age 13.
"Persons who are at least age 18 and less than 21 may have sex with other persons who are less than 4 years younger than them (meaning that a 19 year old may have sex with a 16 year old, but not a 14 year old).
"This rule means that if two people are 4 1/2 years apart in age, they can have sex when the younger person turns 13, but they have to stop when the older person becomes 18. They can't resume having sex until 3 1/2 years later, when the younger person becomes age 17.
"Persons who are age 21 or over may only have sex with other persons who are at least age 17.
"All of the above are subject to additional restrictions if the older person is an employee at a school where the younger person is a student."
lenona at March 30, 2014 1:15 PM
Yikes, I'm being careless - it was Dear Abby.
lenona at March 30, 2014 1:18 PM
"Why WAS the age of consent ever that low?"
In frontier America, a person was usually considered adult and marriagable at 15 or so. And a lot of people considered it important for a woman to began having babies as soon as she was able, considering how short lifespans often were. Having said that, back when the average person's nutrition wasn't as good, I don't know that very many girls were capable of getting pregnant at 13, so why that low, I don't know.
Cousin Dave at March 30, 2014 5:17 PM
Leave a comment