Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

[SteveGrenard]

Yum, Danish Ham

Here's at least one product whose sales won't slip because of a Muslim boycott. Those folks don't eat ham. Right; just like they don't drink alcohol...at least in public. But that's neither here nor there, and hardly the real issue.

I think that anyone with his wits about him, and who knows the difference between noise and information, will know that the riots, threatened beheadings, etc. etc. etc., all from adherents of the "religion of peace," are really just part of the continuing war against freedom. In our time, the West, including Denmark, is free, in ways that no predominantly Muslim nation is, or has ever been.

It is this freedom that is what really scares Muslims.

http://jackrich.wordpress.com/2006/02/08/yum-danish-ham/


Will the next thing we will be hearing is that Denmark will deny an export permit to an arms dealer to ship 50K Danish hams to the Israel?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Check out these photos:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19070_British_Muslims_Threaten_Death





Nutritional value of ham…..

Virginia hams, for example, are cut from razorback hogs fed on peanuts and peaches and smoked over apple- and hickory-wood fires. Ham is a source of high-grade animal protein, thiamine, and iron.

from the Encyclopedia Brittanica

 

[brodski]

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/hams_slam_pork_talk/

[/font]

The entire article from the Evening Telegraph can be found at the above URL.

as someone who has family in Blackburn, I can tell you, the Evening telegraph's story was bollocks.

 

[brodski]

Check out these photos:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19070_British_Muslims_Threaten_Death

Did LGF also cover he fact that those inciting violence where arrested? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4808192.stm

 

[SteveGrenard]

to which one can only reply with the following:

http://www.barking-moonbat.com/index.php/weblog/comments/whats_up_doc/

When you say bollocks does this mean the banks did not remove the piggy banks to assauge the sensitibilities of its moslem customers or did they?
Can you be more specific?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Did LGF also cover he fact that those inciting violence where arrested?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4808192.stm

This BBC report seems to say they were NOT arrested but may be arrested in the near future? Was that the case?

 

[brodski]

This BBC report seems to say they were NOT arrested but may be arrested in the near future? Was that the case?

are we reading the same article? you know the one talking about those 5 men being arrested and held? No not everyone who held the placards were charged, and yes investigations into some are ongoing, but the ringleaders have been arrested and prosecutions are underway. The police did not break up the demonstration, there are too many memories of the pol tax riots, and they didn't want to turn what was a peaceful protest into a violent one, so they recorded what was going on and arrested the ringleaders later. What would you have them do?
You may also want to ask yourself who was it that help the police in successfully identifying those people they captured on video?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm sorry, but aren't we talking about enemy combatants in a war? What exactly will they be tried for? Being on the other side?

-Andrew

No, we're talking about terrorists.

There comes a time in every debate, discussion, negotiation or exchange where continuing becomes a fruitless exercise.

Whenever you start these rants, it's a sign that you know you have lost the argument.

This is especially true when debating with a fanatic who harbors deep rooted beliefs that it is better to kill people so they can go to heaven and reap their reward of 72 virgins than it is to try and save lives by using non-lethal but offensive or humiliating weaponry to stop them.

I don't believe they can go to heaven and reap their reward of 72 virgins. That's their belief.

This is no more prevalent than in the current subject matter. We see it every day in the pro-muslim terrorist supporters whose rhetoric carefully skirts or even ignores the anachronistic and highly destructive manner by which they govern themselves, ignores the atrocities they perpetrate and instead blames others for their problems. Many muslims spend their existence lamenting how they have been robbed and oppressed by the other guy while plotting their revenge rather than getting on with their lives, living in peace and prosperity. Before Israel existed as an object of vilification, opposing tribes of muslims did the same thing to each other and to some extent still do. Certainly there are many muslims also who have moved out of the 8th Century and into the present.

The following quotations provided by a fanatic (who says we should kill muslim terrorists and combatants so they can go to heaven and reap their reward of 72 virgins) does not provide sufficient evidence to prove that a non-lethal offending pork based weapon would be ignored.

Both refs apply to the necessity of eating pork to avoid starvation or the accidental eating of pork. Neither indicates what the position would be if the one deliberately puts themselves in the path of a pork based weapon. Neither deals with the offensive use of pork as an agent to be used to attack their person. Fanatic muslim extremists live their lives looking at the world in a mirror……for their good deed (killing people) is a non-muslim’s bad one.

Steve, the evidence is crystal clear: Muslims subjected to pork involuntarily are excused and will still go to Heaven. Or so they believe.

Your method won't work. That's a fact. All this bravado is for nothing.

So long as the muslim extremists's concept of good and evil is conceptually opposite that of a non-muslim’s, the rights they infringe upon makes them fair game for any kind of psyops designed to humiliate and offend them.

Any kind, Steve? Could you describe some of these other methods?

Reality is that even with the best weapons you still miss now and then.

Even with the best weapons, you miss most of the time. Do you know what the percentages of friendly fire are? Quite thought-provoking, don't you think?

Why would they be demoralized?

Why wouldn't they? Can you come up with something that only targets the terrorists?

So? Isn't supporting terrorisme a crime?

If there is a crime committed, you go to court. You are not shot summarily.

 

[SteveGrenard]

are we reading the same article? you know the one talking about those 5 men being arrested and held? No not everyone who held the placards were charged, and yes investigations into some are ongoing, but the ringleaders have been arrested and prosecutions are underway. The police did not break up the demonstration, there are too many memories of the pol tax riots, and they didn't want to turn what was a peaceful protest into a violent one, so they recorded what was going on and arrested the ringleaders later. What would you have them do?
You may also want to ask yourself who was it that help the police in successfully identifying those people they captured on video?

from the article:

The five were alleged to have taken part in the 3 February demonstration which took place in London.

Four of them were held at their London homes in Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Redbridge and Southall and were taken to a police station for questioning.

A fifth man, who is from Birmingham, is being questioned in the West Midlands.

Last week police said arrests would be made "in the near future" over the protests outside the Danish Embassy on 3 and 4 February.

The headline is misleading.

 

[AWPrime]

Why would they be demoralized?

Why wouldn't they?

If they are out of the area then they don't get hit. And a warning for the non-combatants to get away should be enough.

AWPrime
So? Isn't supporting terrorisme a crime?

If there is a crime committed, you go to court. You are not shot summarily.

In the case of an terrorist that has been captured alive. He goes to court, if he still is for terrorisme (capital offence) then he gets shot. However if he is willing to publicly denounce his old ways, then he gets only a few years in jail.

 

[CFLarsen]

If they are out of the area then they don't get hit. And a warning for the non-combatants to get away should be enough.

It's not that simple. Real war is not fought in nice, clean, little squares on a map, where refugees can safely and quickly move out of the way. All too often, people are caught in the fighting.

In the case of an terrorist that has been captured alive. He goes to court, if he still is for terrorisme (capital offence) then he gets shot. However if he is willing to publicly denounce his old ways, then he gets only a few years in jail.

Since when is being in favor of terrorism a capital offense?

Can you show me the law that says this?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Muslims can save their loose change too without fear of piggy banks:

http://www.krittersinthemailbox.com/product/bank.htm

 

[SteveGrenard]

Since when is being in favor of terrorism a capital offense?

Can you show me the law that says this?

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2005/prepared_remarks_042205.htm

• Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries,
• Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy,
• Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft,
• Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction,
• Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees, and
• Conspiracy to Destroy Property

Four of these charges authorize a maximum penalty of death, and as you know, we are seeking the death penalty in this case, for reasons that are spelled out in detail in the United States' 2002 notice of intent to seek the death penalty.

Attorney General of the United States on the ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI case.

Mr. Moussaoui committed no act of terrorism but by his word and word alone demonstrated support for it. Number 1 on the above list is one of those crimes for which the death penalty is possible.

 

[CFLarsen]

Attorney General of the United States on the ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI case.

Mr. Moussaoui committed no act of terrorism but by his word and word alone demonstrated support for it. Number 1 on the above list is one of those crimes for which the death penalty is possible.

Rubbish. He was convicted of conspiring to kill Americans in the 9-11 attacks.

There's a hell of a difference between being in favor of terrorism and conspiring to commit terrorism.

Unless - and think very hard about this one, Steve - you want to argue that merely holding an opinion is now a capital offense in the United States of America.

Do you, yes or no?

Can you describe some of these other methods you want to use against these terrorists?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen originally asked:

"Since when is being in favor of terrorism a capital offense?"


Larsen changes the premise and meaning of his question by responding to an answer by saying:

".....you want to argue that merely holding an opinion is now a capital offense in the United States of America."

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

Answer: No, I do not.

But ....the defendent in this case was not in the United States on 9-11. He did not commit any acts of terrorism. His lawyers used this as his defense against the death penalty. However, by his own words he "favored" multiple terrorist acts which were enumerated in the AG's remarks. So you can be charged with a capital offense for "favoring" such things as hijacking an airplane, causing the death of government employees and international terrorism, etc etc (see above). Anything he favored or did such as take flying lessons and the purpose therefor are based on his own word and his words alone.

ZM clearly "favored them." He clearly wished he was in on it but missed the boat. He admitted this but he didn't physically do anything so he was convicted on conspiracy charges. Conspiracy charges are complex in the U.S. and are used for the most heinous of behaviors ...such behaviors including favoring the acts including terrosim enumerated by the Attorney General. After ZM's day in court he recanted and said "I was just kidding." I guess that reduces the charges he faces the death penalty for to mere opinion...well not even that. He was just kidding? The take home message is that this is nothing to kid about. I hope they fry his butt and grease it with pork fat first.

 

[CFLarsen]

Larsen originally asked:

"Since when is being in favor of terrorism a capital offense?"


Larsen changes the premise and menaing of his question by responding to an answer by saying:

".....you want to argue that merely holding an opinion is now a capital offense in the United States of America."

I do not change the premise one little bit, Steve. I asked:

Since when is being in favor of terrorism a capital offense?

To which you replied by posting Moussaoui's case, which was not about being in favor of terrorism, but about conspiring to kill Americans.

Do you understand the difference, Steve? Yes or no? If yes, please explain.

Answer: No, I do not.

But ....the defendent in this case was not in the United States on 9-11. He did not commit any acts of terrorism. His lawyers used this as his defense. However, by his own words he "favored" multiple terrorist acts which were enumerated in the AG's remarks. So you can be charged with a capital offense for "favoring" such things as hijacking an airplane, causing the death of government employees and international terrorism, etc etc (see above). Anything he favored or did such as take flying lessons and the purpose therefor are based on his own word and his words alone.

ZM clearly "favored them." He clearly wished he was in on it but missed the boat. He admitted this but he didn't physically do anything so he was convicted on conspiracy charges. Conspiracy charges are complex in the U.S. and are used for the most heinous of behaviors ...such behaviors including favoring the acts including terrosim enumerated by the Attorney General. After ZM's day in court he recanted and said "I was just kidding." I guess that reduces the charges he faces the death penalty for to mere opinion...well not even that. He was just kidding? The take home message is that this is nothing to kid about. I hope they fry his butt and grease it with pork fat first.

Paddle all you want, Steve.

Can you describe some of these other methods you want to use against these terrorists?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Again, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit these acts because he favored them. Do you think he would have been convicted if he could prove he did not favor them? You used the word "favoring" first and now it is you doing the back peddling.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen:

"Can you describe some of these other methods you want to use against these terrorists?"


At minimal cost any duly convicted and sentenced to death terrorist or person favoring or conspiring to commit terrorism who is a muslim extremist should first have their heads and their behinds lathered with pork fat so that when they die they will believe they will not reap their reward of 72 virgins in paradise. This barbaric treatment would cost very little and act as a deterrent whereas it seems merely being executed is not a deterrent to others.

 

[CFLarsen]

Again, he was convicted of conspiracy to commit these acts because he favored them. Do you think he would have been convicted if he could prove he did not favor them? You used the word "favoring" first and now it is you doing the back peddling.

I am not doing any back pedalling at all, Steve. Is it all he did? Favor these viewpoints?

Because if he was, then you are arguing that merely having a viewpoint is indeed a capital crime in the US.

At minimal cost any duly convicted and sentenced to death terrorist or person favoring or conspiring to commit terrorism who is a muslim extremist should first have their heads and their behinds lathered with pork fat so that when they die they will believe they will not reap their reward of 72 virgins in paradise. This barbaric treatment would cost very little and act as a deterrent whereas it seems merely being executed is not a deterrent to others.

That's pretty gruesome, Steve. As well as being rather futile, given the evidence that, since this is involuntarily, said Muslims would not be kept out of Paradise.

Have you informed the media about this? Or are you not man enough to stand behind your word?

 

[AWPrime]

It's not that simple. Real war is not fought in nice, clean, little squares on a map, where refugees can safely and quickly move out of the way. All too often, people are caught in the fighting.

That is really bad luck or stupidity from their part.

Since when is being in favor of terrorism a capital offense?

1. In my case we have captured a terrorist, so he has already aided terrorists.
2. And even in this case we give that thrash a chance to live.