http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=HATE Fri, 24 May 2013 18:30:33 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=HATE Fri, 24 May 2013 13:32:41 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d4_1369415949 waterlawman 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? I says no for ten verifiable reasons. Here are four points you must read. 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 Post. 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 is well documented with quotations and references to the Quran, the hadith, and classical legal opinions. 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, 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' stands for Muhammad, the earliest Muslims, and classical legal scholars. Here are the top 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 (see reason no. nine), 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 . (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. Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Islamic scholar holding up rods that husbands may use to hit their wives. The Quran says: 4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them , 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, &quot;I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!&quot; (Bukhari) This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl-bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127: 'He struck me 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. Here is the supporting article for the ninth point. It has a long list of different translations of Sura 4:34, in order to resolve confusion over this verse, circulating around the web. This longer article has many links that demonstrate the oppression of women under Islamic law. 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. 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. 7. Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off. Warning! This short article has photos of severed hands. 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, which once ruled in Afghanistan. A Saudi cleric justifies chopping off hands here. 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. 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. 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 . . . 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. For more information on Muhammad's brutality and the barbaric laws that flow out of it.. 5. Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed. In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in 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 had two people burned and that Abu Bakr 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. 6+- 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. . (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 this 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. Here is the support for the fourth reason. 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 (see 9, above), 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. Muhammad (and today's Muslims) rely on violence and force to protect his message, besides reason and persuasive argumentation. The Quran and the hadith, both of which orders death to critics. 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 (see the linked article in no. three, above), 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. See the previous point no. three for acts that entail leaving Islam according to Islamic law. 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'). This Muslim website has an overview of Islam on apostates. They should be given time to repent, but if they refuse, they must be killed. And the number one reason why sharia is bad for all societies . . . 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. The differences between jihad in Islam and the wars in the Old Testament. . There are vast differences between Islam and Judaism on this topic. 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 demonstrates beyond doubt that sharia does not benefit any society, for it contains too many harsh rules and punishments. One of the most tragic and under-reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce courting Australia as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. Whether sharia is imposed gradually or rapidly, Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Such a court should never be permitted in the US, the rest of the West, or anywhere else in the world that is battling Islam. 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. Thankfully, the province of Quebec, Canada, has forbidden sharia. This is the right initiative. Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d4_1369415949 waterlawman Top Ten reasons why Sharia is bad for all Societies. sharia,Muslim,Qur'an,truth,Islam,news,politics,war,live-leak,warning,graphic,death,hi-jab,peace,race,love,hate,god,devil,luciferian,false,religion,christian Fri, 24 May 2013 05:49:44 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ea_1369388860 BIKERMAN Anjem Choudary refuses to 'abhor' Woolwich attack http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ea_1369388860 BIKERMAN Anjem Choudary refuses to 'abhor' Woolwich attack Anjem Choudary, vile, murder, muslim, islam, hate Thu, 23 May 2013 23:40:29 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=46b_1369365163 HerbOverstanding Governor Mary Fallin signs Senate Bill No. 406 into legislation as preventative measure against Westboro funeral protests in Oklahoma: http://www.ok.gov/odva/documents/SB%20406.pdf http://m.newson6.com/story.aspx?story=14468678&amp;catId=112042 The bill does not go into effect until after this weekend, unfotunately. They published this on Twitter: Many Oklahomans have unified and planned to show up and help counter Westboro's picketing. The counter protest is sponsored by: I want to thank any and everyone who has showed support, in any form, to the victims of Oklahoma in the wake of this terrible devestation. We Okies really appreciate the love we have seen and experienced from everybody. I also want to thank the group Anonymous for their support and intel. This thanks is in regards to my firsthand experience with them so far. I will be seeing you at the funerals tomorrow. - Minute Militant (Herb) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=46b_1369365163 HerbOverstanding Oklahoma Passes Legislation to Prevent Westboro Funeral Protests Oklahoma, Mary Fallin, Westboro, legislation, funerals, protest, hate, moore, newcastle, shawnee, tornado, okies, anonymous Fri, 24 May 2013 16:50:20 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae0_1369427258 SpartacusTesla http://www.vice.com/read/we-watched-the-stockholm-suburbs-burning ... really beginning to love this channel. Media blowing things out of proportion is not a new thing. But after this weeks events and public ( as well as LiveLeak ) response from everyone, I am beginning to realize something else: Many people WANT drama in their lives. They WANT to have an enemy to hate. So they easily allow themselves to feel threatened, when in reality, the things that should scare us more ( Cancer from cigarettes and pollution, deteriorating health care, less fulfilling lives then our parents and grandparents who had less technology, Justin Bieber's new album coming out) are overlooked. The population of Muslims in England is less than 5%. That's a fact. One man was killed earlier this week by 2 lunatics. Sad, but it was one man. How many dies from drunk driving or cancer from cigarettes since then in England? Here are the statistics on Muslim population in England, and please read the VICE article, it's not what you would expect, and it has given me a newfound respect to the way Swedes conduct themselves. Population of England : 53 Million United Kingdom Census 2011 suggesting that by 2011 the total Muslim population had reached 2.7 million, 4.8% of the total population 1,500 mosques for 2.7 million Muslims. Go to any mosque on Friday the holy day, and I promise you at most you will see a couple hundred. Which shows only a small percent even go to the mosque during the holy day, no different than church. Search as much as you want for videos and photos of the &quot;riots&quot; in London the other night, and you will see the same guys, and the same footage. Perhaps 50-100 drunks walking around the town all night long. That's all. That's all. Relax everyone. Relax. Census YearMuslim (% of Total population)Registered MosquesMuslims per mosque19610.11 77,14319710.46 307,53319811.11 1493,71119911.86 4432,14420013.07 6142,60620114.80 1,5001,912 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ae0_1369427258 SpartacusTesla VICE article on the RIOTS in Sweden and Muslim Population stats in England london riots Fri, 24 May 2013 01:23:05 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e3_1369372636 RealityChecker Homosexual domestic terrorists, taking a cue from The Homosexual Agenda, a scripted propaganda manifesto they preach, proselytize and thump, homosexuals and their Big Government Allies are once again crawling out from their backwoods, CroMagnin antiquated homosexual hate caves to economically terrorize an elderly Christian women for refusing to go along with their scripted agenda of intolerant, heterophobic, hate filled, Christian-bashing bigotry. Baronelle Stutzman had been serving a particular client for 10 years, a client (Ingersoll) who made sure he let everyone know he regularly engaged in homosexual sex acts. In accordance with their latest shams to destroy marriage and the family, Ingersol claimed he was getting married and he wanted Stuzman to supply wedding flowers. "He (Ingersoll) said he decided to get married and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, 'I am sorry. I can't do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,'" said Stutzman. "We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story." "It's a personal conviction," she insisted. "It's not a matter of being right or wrong. It's my belief." Stutzman's attorneys stated that they are enlisting the aid of pro-marriage defense groups across the country. Any legal action The Washington State AG's bigoted Ferguson takes can expect to be met by "an immediate challenge in federal court" and that "a number of national non-profit organizations" are "ready for a fight." This is the same domestic terrorist tactic bigoted homosexual hate mongerers tried to use against Chik-Fil-A where their intolerant hatred massively backfired. Now taking a cue from their scripted propaganda psy-ops hate manifesto called The Homosexual Agenda which instructs homosexual bigots to always claim they are victims in need of more laws, more bigot government and more protection as they attack heteros, this is a perfect foil to the victim refrain where homosexual domestic terrorists cry; &quot;How does what two consenting adults do behind closed bedroom doors affect you-boo-hoo?!&quot; It is because intolerant, bigoted homosexual can't seem to keep their chosen sexual perversions to the bedroom, yet instead they constantly attack society, marriage, the civil rights and freedoms of heterosexuals, Christians and underage boys. Homosexuals need to get with the modern, progressive, tolerant times and the latest findings in psychology and try some tolerance and open mindedness and stop ferociously attacking the civil rights of heterosexuals and Christians and underage boys. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5e3_1369372636 RealityChecker Homosexual Domestic Terrorists Attack Christian Flowershop Elderly Lady homosexuals Fri, 24 May 2013 00:28:42 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4f_1369369555 ThatOneBosnian OK WELL BEFORE I GET ANY HATE FROM MUSLIMS PLEASE LET ME ASSURE YOU GUYS I AM MUSLIM WELL ON THE FENCE ABOUT BEING AGNOSTIC OR MUSLIM BUT COME ON DONT GET BUT HURT BECAUSE THIS SHIT IS JUST HILARIOUS CHEERS AND SPREAD THE LAUGHTER http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a4f_1369369555 ThatOneBosnian Captain Palestine.....lol Muslim Palestine hilarious Thu, 23 May 2013 20:05:10 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e40_1369353690 swordblow_25 http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets ( including the Guardian ) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism". That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do . But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base , the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers , that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of "terrorism" who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country . It's true that the soldier who was killed yesterday was out of uniform and not engaged in combat at the time he was attacked. But the same is true for the vast bulk of killings carried out by the US and its allies over the last decade, where people are killed in their homes, in their cars, at work, while asleep (in fact, the US has re-defined "militant" to mean "any military-aged male in a strike zone"). Indeed, at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on drone killings, Gen. James Cartwright and Sen. Lindsey Graham both agreed that the US has the right to kill its enemies even while they are "asleep", that you don't "have to wake them up before you shoot them" and "make it a fair fight". Once you declare that the "entire globe is a battlefield" (which includes London) and that any "combatant" (defined as broadly as possible) is fair game to be killed - as the US has done - then how can the killing of a solider of a nation engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be "terrorism"? When I asked on Twitter this morning what specific attributes of this attack make it "terrorism" given that it was a soldier who was killed, the most frequent answer I received was that "terrorism" means any act of violence designed to achieve political change, or more specifically, to induce a civilian population to change their government or its policies of out fear of violence. Because, this line of reasoning went, one of the attackers here said that "the only reasons we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and warned that "you people will never be safe. Remove your government", the intent of the violence was to induce political change, thus making it "terrorism". That is at least a coherent definition. But doesn't that then encompass the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade? What was the US/UK "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam's regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent . That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK , and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends. The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent , of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments' policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of "terrorism" that includes Wednesday's London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done? I know this vital caveat will fall on deaf ears for some, but nothing about this discussion has anything to do with justifiability. An act can be vile, evil, and devoid of justification without being "terrorism": indeed, most of the worst atrocities of the 20th Century, from the Holocaust to the wanton slaughter of Stalin and Pol Pot and the massive destruction of human life in Vietnam, are not typically described as "terrorism". To question whether something qualifies as "terrorism" is not remotely to justify or even mitigate it. That should go without saying, though I know it doesn't. The reason it's so crucial to ask this question is that there are few terms - if there are any - that pack the political, cultural and emotional punch that "terrorism" provides. When it comes to the actions of western governments, it is a conversation-stopper, justifying virtually anything those governments want to do. It's a term that is used to start wars, engage in sustained military action, send people to prison for decades or life, to target suspects for due-process-free execution, shield government actions behind a wall of secrecy, and instantly shape public perceptions around the world. It matters what the definition of the term is, or whether there is a consistent and coherent definition. It matters a great deal. There is ample scholarship proving that the term has no such clear or consistently applied meaning (see the penultimate section here , and my interview with Remi Brulin here ). It is very hard to escape the conclusion that, operationally, the term has no real definition at this point beyond "violence engaged in by Muslims in retaliation against western violence toward Muslims". When media reports yesterday began saying that "there are indications that this may be act of terror", it seems clear that what was really meant was: "there are indications that the perpetrators were Muslims driven by political grievances against the west" (earlier this month, an elderly British Muslim was stabbed to death in an apparent anti-Muslim hate crime and nobody called that "terrorism"). Put another way, the term at this point seems to have no function other than propagandistically and legally legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing any and all violence done in return to those states. One last point: in the wake of the Boston Marathon attacks, I documented that the perpetrators of virtually every recent attempted and successful "terrorist" attack against the west cited as their motive the continuous violence by western states against Muslim civilians. It's certainly true that Islam plays an important role in making these individuals willing to fight and die for this perceived just cause (just as Christianity , Judaism , Buddhism , and nationalism lead some people to be willing to fight and die for their cause). But the proximate cause of these attacks are plainly political grievances: namely, the belief that engaging in violence against aggressive western nations is the only way to deter and/or avenge western violence that kills Muslim civilians. Add the London knife attack on this soldier to that growing list. One of the perpetrators said on camera that "the only reason we killed this man is because Muslims are dying daily" and "we apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands our women have to see the same." As I've endlessly pointed out, highlighting this causation doesn't remotely justify the acts. But it should make it anything other than surprising. On Twitter last night, Michael Moore sardonically summarized western reaction to the London killing this way: I am outraged that we can't kill people in other counties without them trying to kill us!" Basic human nature simply does not allow you to cheer on your government as it carries out massive violence in multiple countries around the world and then have you be completely immune from having that violence returned. Drone admissionsIn not unrelated news, the US government yesterday admitted for the first time what everyone has long known: that it killed four Muslim American citizens with drones during the Obama presidency, including a US-born teenager whom everyone acknowledges was guilty of nothing. As Jeremy Scahill - whose soon-to-be-released film "Dirty Wars" examines US covert killings aimed at Muslims - noted yesterday about this admission , it "leaves totally unexplained why the United States has killed so many innocent non-American citizens in its strikes in Pakistan and Yemen". Related to all of these issues, please watch this two-minute trailer for "Dirty Wars", which I reviewed a few weeks ago here : NoteThe headline briefly referred to the attack as a "machete killing", which is how initial reports described it, but the word "machete" was deleted to reflect uncertainty over the exact type of knife use. As the first paragraph now indicates, the weapon appeared to be some sort of meat cleaver. UPDATEIn the Guardian today, former British soldier Joe Glenton, who served in the war in Afghanistan, writes under the headline "Woolwich attack: of course British foreign policy had a role". He explains: "While nothing can justify the savage killing in Woolwich yesterday of a man since confirmed to have been a serving British soldier, it should not be hard to explain why the murder happened. . . . It should by now be self-evident that by attacking Muslims overseas, you will occasionally spawn twisted and, as we saw yesterday, even murderous hatred at home. We need to recognise that, given the continued role our government has chosen to play in the US imperial project in the Middle East, we are lucky that these attacks are so few and far between." This is one of those points so glaringly obvious that it is difficult to believe that it has to be repeated. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e40_1369353690 swordblow_25 Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'? soldier, england, UK, woolwich, terrorism, iraq, afghanistan, islam, muslim, attack, london, usa, america Thu, 23 May 2013 19:34:08 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=66f_1369351926 Andrew Paul Barber POLICE are examining a video of a woman racially abusing staff at KFC because they wouldn't give her more butter. The woman swore loudly and shouted racist insults at staff when she was refused an extra piece of butter for her corn on the cob. The incident in the London Road, Brighton, branch of the fast food restaurant, was captured by another patron who objected to the woman swearing in front of a young child. Sussex Police said they take any report of racial abuse extremely seriously and would investigate the incident. The video was posted on YouTube on September 24 and has been viewed more than 100,000 times. Andrew Barber, who recorded the video, said: "I asked her not to swear in front of a little girl. She did not listen to anyone." A police spokesman said the video had been passed to the appropriate department. He said: "We take any form of hate crime seriously and Sussex Police will not tolerate it in any form. "Anyone who feels that they are the victim of abuse of this nature should report it to police; their call will be dealt with sensitively and in confidence." If you have any information about 'Mrs Butter' call Sussex Police on 0845 6070999. http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9306961.Police_examine_Brighton_KFC_racist_ranting_video/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZa2u_hDJ7Q http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=66f_1369351926 Andrew Paul Barber KFC Mrs BUTTER kfc, racism, butter, crazy, Tue, 21 May 2013 02:42:38 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4f6_1369118011 Bob_Lablaw The 28-year-old University of Wyoming student who allegedly threatened herself with rape in a Facebook hoax in April was convicted of aggravated assault in 2005 after she brandished a gun at an employer who fired her. Meg Lanker-Simons, now a newly-minted UW graduate, was charged with interference with a police investigation after she allegedly posted on an anonymous Facebook forum that she wanted to engage in angry sexual intercourse - with someone named "Meg Lanker Simons." The posting on UW Crushes read: "I want to hatefuck Meg Lanker Simons so hard. That chick runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn't care who knows it. I think its so hot and makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican bitch." It turns out that the April 24 incident isn't the strident leftist's first rodeo in Wyoming's criminal system. As the Laramie Boomerang reports, Lanker-Simons had an aggravated assault conviction in 2005 as the result of a bizarre gun-brandishing incident. After Lanker-Simons was fired from a radio station in the fall of 2005, she returned and pulled a Glock 22 .40 caliber handgun from her purse. She waved the semi-automatic pistol around. She pointed it at the man who sacked her. He testified that he was "in fear for his life," notes the Boomerang. The radio station was evacuated. Police caught Lanker-Simons as she tried to flee the scene in her vehicle. They held her at gunpoint. In July 2006, Lanker-Simons - then known as Meghan Michelena - was sentenced to six years of probation. Her term of probation was subject to a number of conditions. She had to undergo counseling, complete community service, pay fines and apologize to her victims. She was also prevented from owning any guns. The alleged Facebook hoax brought national attention to the Cowboy State's flagship college. Initially, the administration stood firmly behind Lanker-Simons. "No student should have to deal with such threatening language," said one sternly-worded official statement. A school official also denounced "rape culture," according to KOWB. Concerned fellow feminists also threw a rally for Lanker-Simons - complete with all manner of signs condemning rape threats - before police concluded that Lanker-Simons herself was behind the threats. This month, Lanker-Simons participated in the University of Wyoming's commencement ceremonies despite the charges against her. She graduated with a bachelor's degree in psychology. Lanker-Simons is also a blogger and a local radio host. In 2010, Lanker-Simons and Bill Ayers sued the University of Wyoming after school officials decided to cancel a speech by Ayers, a former Weather Underground radical and mentor to President Obama. Also in 2010, her husband, Andrew Simons, ran a failed Democratic campaign for Wyoming secretary of state. According to the Boomerang, the interference charge is a misdemeanor punishable by a prison sentence up to a year and a fine up to $1,000. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/18/wyo-student-who-threatened-to-rape-self-on-facebook-was-convicted-of-assault/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4f6_1369118011 Bob_Lablaw Think Progress award-winning blogger Who Was Charged with Faking own <span class="highlight">Hate</span> Crime Was Convicted of Assault Meg Lanker-Simons, Think progress, fake hate crime, Assault,Liberal Progressive Sun, 19 May 2013 09:38:57 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ad_1368970465 kanns01 BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) - Picnickers in northern Israel were surprised Thursday when they saw anti-Arab racist slogans printed on T-shirts of a guide affiliated to a religious youth movement Ezra. "Torching Arabs for education," was written on the guide's shirt, families who were picnicking in the north told the Israeli daily Maariv. Maariv reported that it was not the first time such slogans were seen on T-shirts. A witness told the newspaper that he saw "death to Arabs" written on T-shirts wore by guides affiliated to the same movement. source: http: /www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=596931 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ad_1368970465 kanns01 This is how <span class="highlight">hate</span> spreads - Israel youth movement shirts display anti-Arab racism hate, jews, palestine, spreading, zionist Sat, 18 May 2013 02:53:56 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ee_1368859765 sluggoo so much hate, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ee_1368859765 sluggoo wake up people fuck the hate Sun, 19 May 2013 22:10:49 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f18_1369015291 OMERbinHATTAPlovecCc everyone is terrorist in syria !!! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f18_1369015291 OMERbinHATTAPlovecCc why syrian people <span class="highlight">hate</span> bashar al assad so much ?? see the vid syrian war