Hamas gunmen hit new low ... even for them

[CFLarsen]

The war in this case is being characterized as a civil war. They will be fighting each other. This was made abundently clear in a number of posts above. Is there some part about the concept of "civil war" that you do not understand?

It isn't a civil war yet.

Why do you advocate a sharia court, when you have been so vocal about how bad sharia courts are?

 

[Grammatron]

So, wait, what's the meaning of "is"?

 

[fuelair]

It isn't a civil war yet.

Why do you advocate a sharia court, when you have been so vocal about how bad sharia courts are?

That's why - a regular court might just imprison or execute them. A Sharia court will either celebrate them or kill them in an interesting way - depending.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's why - a regular court might just imprison or execute them. A Sharia court will either celebrate them or kill them in an interesting way - depending.

If you listen carefully, Bob Dylan's song "Everybody Must Get Stoned" is playing in the background. The 12 year old advocate of stoning the gunmen may be a Dylan fan, or may not.

DR

 

[SteveGrenard]

Answer: just giving them what they want:

Hamas intends to apply Islamic law, or shari'a, as the basis for running the Palestinian Authority after its landslide win in the late January elections for the legislature, officials from the group said. But they added that people would not be forced to comply with shari'a.

The victory of the militant group in the elections has stirred concerns by more liberal Palestinians that the Islamist group might enforce its views after defeating Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas's secular Fatah movement.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_4_123/ai_n16439637

JERUSALEM -- The incoming Hamas government will move quickly to make Islamic sharia "a source" of law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and will overhaul the Palestinian education system to separate boys and girls and introduce a more Islamic curriculum, a senior official in the movement said yesterday.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060128/HAMASMAIN28/

Predictably hypocrisy will rule the day with Hamas. The killers will probably never see either Fatah's secular court or their own Shari'a. If ever the latter, yes it would be intreesting to see if they are feted or executed in an interesting way. Sawing off their heads with a dull blade sounds good. Stoning them while buried up to their necks in the dirt also works.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's why - a regular court might just imprison or execute them. A Sharia court will either celebrate them or kill them in an interesting way - depending.

So, in order to beat people who advocate Sharia, we use Sharia to beat them with?

That sounds really intelligent...

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, in order to beat people who advocate Sharia, we use Sharia to beat them with?

That sounds really intelligent...

Why not think out of the box, Claus, and consider it social judo?

DR

 

[SteveGrenard]

It isn't a civil war yet.

Nobody said it was.

Why do you advocate a sharia court, when you have been so vocal about how bad sharia courts are?

Yes, exactly. What goes around, comes around.

But just for the record, I did not object to Shari’a mandating the death sentence or life in prison for pre-meditated murder. But myself, most people, including presumably you, do object to Shari’a for prescribing the death penalty for: apostasy, adultery, blasphemy, elopement, bearing a child out of wedlock, being victim of a rape, being a homosexual,……

and punishments such as amputation for theft, ocular enucleation for such things as getting into a fight and flogging (100 lashes usually) for various other "offenses" most of us wouldn’t even consider punishable crimes.



Did you know that Shari’a Has been Introduced in Nigeria?

The new Sharia penal codes which have been introduced in 12 states in northern Nigeria since 1999, includes death by stoning for behaviour termed as zina the perpetrator of which is defined as "whoever, being a man or a woman fully responsible, has sexual intercourse through the genital [sic] of a person over whom he has no sexual rights and in circumstances in which no doubt exists as to the illegality of the act". Zina was previously punishable by flogging for Muslims under the Penal Code. However, in the States that have introduced new Sharia penal codes, zina now carries a mandatory death sentence if the accused is married, while 100 lashes is the mandatory sentence if the accused is not married. This applies to Muslims only. Of particular interest is that by using the death penalty to regulate sexual behaviour, other rights are being violated, such as the right to be free from discrimination, freedom of expression and association as well as the right to privacy. Source: Amnesty International

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR440172004?open&of=ENG-NGA

In case you forgot, here are some snippets from Wikipedia on Shari’a:

In accordance with the Qur'an and several hadith, theft is punished by imprisonment or amputation of hands or feet, depending on the number of times it was committed and depending on the item of theft.

Main article: Stoning to Death in Islam

In accordance with hadith, stoning to death is the penalty for unmarried men and women who commit adultery.

In most interpretations of Sharia, conversion by Muslims to other religions, basically one of the freedoms guaranteed under universal human rights, is strictly forbidden and is termed apostasy. Muslim theology equates apostasy to treason, and in most interpretations of sharia, the penalty for apostasy is death.

 

[gtc]

So, in order to beat people who advocate Sharia, we use Sharia to beat them with?

That sounds really intelligent...

Yes it would be unfortunate that they don't recieve a fair trial.

On the other hand, it would be good to see them getting a taste of their own medicine.

I think there is a word in German for that emotion.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The following brief report could not say it better. Pro-Muslim, politically correct liberals who defend Shari'a and the Islamic religion that brings this body of law to your country or jursidicition will end up being the politically correct's worst nightmare. Do we have one or more such pro-Muslim/Shari'a types here? It would seem so. That the very muslims who would bring this law to you not be subjected to it elevates the hypocrisy to new levels:

reprinted from Dhimmi Watch (at url below):

The British Broadcasting Corporation has admitted to a marked bias against Christianity and a strong inclination to pro-Muslim reporting among the network’s executives and key anchors, in a leaked account of an “impartiality summit.”

Remember folks, the "Beeb" is government owned, like PBS.

The Daily Mail reported Sunday on the secret London meeting of key executives, called by BBC chairman Michael Grade and hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley. The report revealed that many senior executives are deeply frustrated with the corporation’s commitment to “political correctness” and liberal policies at the expense of journalistic integrity and objectivity.

BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals. They acknowledged that ethnic minorities held a disproportionate number of positions and said the BBC deliberately encourages multiculturalism and is more careful to avoid offending the Muslim community than Christians.

Tossing the Bible into a garbage can on a comedy show would be acceptable, they said, but not the Koran, and if possible they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden, giving him the opportunity to explain his views.

Politically correct and multicultural, the Brits are slowly eroding their own great tradition of democracy, freedom and tolerance in favor of theocratic fanatics who'd love to slit their throats, put their women in sacks, and put homosexuals to death.

Think it can't happen here?

http://amboytimes.typepad.com/the_amboy_times/2006/10/bbc_admits_prom.html

 

[a_unique_person]

At the risk of seeming mean to the pro-Hamas/Hizbllshts on many of these threads: Find them, spend a week or so explaining the error of their ways (I see medical equipment, electrical apparatuses and other such as necessary here) and then drop them off near known Hamass site. From a helicopter. (On the positive side, they will have repented their evil and will be devoutly wishing for the drop-off.)

I don't recall anyone being pro Hamas or Hezbollah.

 

[fuelair]

So, in order to beat people who advocate Sharia, we use Sharia to beat them with?

That sounds really intelligent...

You asked for an explanation of why a Sharia court, I gave one - I like it because they (Hamass) lose either way it comes out. I'd rather just bomb the living crap out of them - but that's just me. (Uh, that's in response to your beat people who advocate Sharia comment.) Clearly you are as bad as you claim Steve is on the other side of the argument. Brilliant.

 

[fuelair]

I don't recall anyone being pro Hamas or Hezbollah.

Feel free to call it apologists then. To me, anyone who argues for letting murderers/kidnappers terrorists go free because they hide among their own civilians (and - by direct evidence - often willing civilians) is for them/apologist for them. You are, of course, free to disagree but I have a blind spot about and a will to destroy terrorists.

 

[a_unique_person]

Feel free to make up any slander you want. It says more about you than anything else.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Feel free to call it apologists then. To me, anyone who argues for letting murderers/kidnappers terrorists go free because they hide among their own civilians (and - by direct evidence - often willing civilians) is for them/apologist for them. You are, of course, free to disagree but I have a blind spot about and a will to destroy terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

Apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of a position. Someone who engages in apologetics is called an apologist or an "apologete". The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning defense of a position against an attack.

Yes, apologists are equivalent to defenders.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, exactly. What goes around, comes around.

If you use fundamentalist methods, what difference is there between you and fundamentalists?

Did you know that Shari’a Has been Introduced in Nigeria?

You just can't refrain from distorting the facts, can you? Your own source says 12 states in Northern Nigeria (there are 36 in all). But, no, you have to paint a much bleaker picture. It has to be "Nigeria".

Yes it would be unfortunate that they don't recieve a fair trial.

On the other hand, it would be good to see them getting a taste of their own medicine.

I think there is a word in German for that emotion.

I'll ask you the same question: If you use fundamentalist methods, what difference is there between you and fundamentalists?

You asked for an explanation of why a Sharia court, I gave one - I like it because they (Hamass) lose either way it comes out. I'd rather just bomb the living crap out of them - but that's just me. (Uh, that's in response to your beat people who advocate Sharia comment.) Clearly you are as bad as you claim Steve is on the other side of the argument. Brilliant.

Huh? How do you figure that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

Yes, apologists are equivalent to defenders.

Who, specifically, are you talking about?

 

[zenith-nadir]

It isn't a civil war yet.

Really?
Palestinians kill Hamas-linked judge

"KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip - Palestinian gunmen fatally ambushed a Hamas-linked Islamic judge and militant commander outside of a courthouse early Wednesday, escalating factional tensions in the Gaza Strip."

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. (cite)

Hamas and Fatah are parties within the same culture fighting against each other for the control of political power.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: Who, specifically, are you talking about?

You are having trouble keeping track of who said what. You really should not ask me this question but rather ask the person who brought it up first. I merely appended a definition of the term apologist. If anyone serves as an apologist for Christianity or Islam or any religion you care to name they are in fact defending that religion, warts and all, whether they like it or not.

If the shoe fits, well you know the the rest of it.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: If you use fundamentalist methods, what difference is there between you and fundamentalists?

What fundamentalist methods are you talking about? Surely you don't believe you have to be a fundamentalist to embrace Shari'a? Or "use" it to quote yourself.

Assuming for a moment that you are referring to Shari'a, mistakenly attributing it exclusively to "Islamic" fundamentalism, there is a huge difference: I am not promoting Shari'a, I am not conducting a Shari'a and I am certainlyopposed to it save for its imposition of the death penalty or life imprisonment for pre-meditated murder. It's the latter we are talking about here unless you feel that the pre-meditated killing of three small childrenspecifically targeted by a pro-Hamas militia is legal and is somehow not worthy of prosecution under Hamas' Islamic Law as a death penalty case. If this is the true you have waded well into the apologist camp. Not only for Islam but for Hamas now as well.I guess this answers your previous question.

Can you clarify your position by answering the following:

OR may we gather now by your quote above that you are opposed to Shari'a, those who support it and Islamic fundamentalism? (Question for CFL)

OR That you are also opposed to Shari'a for trying the killers of these three children? Is that what you are saying?
(2 Questions for CFL)

 

[CFLarsen]

Really?
Palestinians kill Hamas-linked judge

"KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip - Palestinian gunmen fatally ambushed a Hamas-linked Islamic judge and militant commander outside of a courthouse early Wednesday, escalating factional tensions in the Gaza Strip."

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. (cite)

Hamas and Fatah are parties within the same culture fighting against each other for the control of political power.

I wouldn't go that far - yet. Iraq, OTOH.....