Qatar Supports Islamic State Methods of Murder

Qatar is supposed to be a civilized Islamic society, or so says the Obama administration. They would never condone what the Islamic State did to Mu'ath al-Kaseasbeh, the Jordanian pilot--immolating him in a cage while filming it for propaganda and recruitment purposes. Qatar may abide by Sharia law, but burning someone to death is not something they would support.

Except they do.

Raymond Ibrahim, writing for Robert Spencer's blog, Jihad Watch, told of a popular website known as Islam Web, which is owned by Qatar's Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs. The website featured a posting that appeared February 7, 2006 titled "The Burning of las bin Abdul Yalil by Abu Bakr." The fatwa explained that the burning of people as a form of punishment is allowed under Islam. 

Another Abu Bakr, this one with an al-Baghdadi after that name, may have been influenced by this post when the IS carried out the evil, barbaric immolation of al-Kaseasbeh.

But wouldn't you know it, just hours after the Jordanian pilot was burned alive, the fatwa (number 71480) was removed from the website.

Interestingly, the IS issued their own fatwa that justified the burning alive of the pilot and it makes the same arguments the Qatar fatwa made. It cited the same hadiths, tafsirs, and "even the logic of "humility"--implying that IS may well have relied on this fatwa from the Qatari website when writing its own to burn the pilot alive--" says Ibrahim. 

"Islam Web won the World Summit Award of 2007, on the basis that it is 'the best interactive edutainment website for Arabic-speaking children' by the consensus of the Jury which met in Croatia, in evaluating the productions nominated from 160 countries," Ibrahim added.

If we refuse to identify our enemy, we are going to be speaking Arabic ourselves.

Tweet

On Burning: One Muslim's Infidel is Another Muslim's Holy Muslim

Claiming the Islamic State is not Islamic or doesn't represent what Islam is really all about only says that you are either Islam-ignorant, lying for the sake of Islam (called Taqiyya) or that you belong to a different sect of Islam than the Muslim you claim is un-Islamic.

Sunnis believe the Shia's are infidels, and the feeling is mutual. Both believe Sufis are infidels, but the Sufis just keep on dancing anyway. Sunnis and Shia's hate the Jews because the Koran tells them to, and neither sect particularly likes anyone outside their own tight group.

When the Jordanian fighter pilot, Muah al-Kaseasbeh, was savagely burned to death by ISIS, a Jordanian spokesman told Fox News that it was totally un-Islamic to do so. 

Obama al-Jazeera bin Lyin

How different is Al-Jazeera's whitewashing of Islamic barbarism from the Obama administration's? Answer: as different as identical twins.

Al-Jazeera America began by pretending it would cover the news honestly and in depth, but it apparently has as much depth as the snake oil salesman, Al Jazeera Gore, who sold them the slot in 2013 from Current.

The National Review obtained an email that directed Al Jazeera's propagandist "reporters" to not use terms such as "jihad," Islamist," and "terrorist." A top executive for the company, Carlos Van Meek, wrote to the New York and Washington newsrooms about how words can become problematic and also said, "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."

"Freedom fighter" shoots unarmed cop

Or "activist," if you work for CNN, as Christiane Amanpour called the Charlie Hebdo terrorists who massacred the staff at the newspaper. 

Scum buckets who kill children, behead journalists and others while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" are not freedom fighters. The children and journalists they kill are not in any way compromising their freedom. They are terrorists, and Islamic terrorists to be clear. The people who killed 3000 Americans and others on 911 were not freedom fights or militants; they were terrorists, of the Islamic kind.

Van Meek, who fits his name, said we should call terrorists "militants," or "fighters." He said that calling them extremists is forbidden. "Do not use the term Islamist," he said, because it's a "simplistic label."

Van Meek's level of political correctness has reached a point of pandering to Islamic terrorists. Al Jazeera is a champion at pandering--before they pandered in America, they pandered to Osama bin Laden and his terrorists of the Islamic kind. 

But don't fret, patriots, Al Jazeera has about as many prime-time viewers (18,000) as an Al Sharpton anti-white march.

So what about Obama and the boys on the left? Well, they're trying to convince us that Jordan's plan to swap Sajida al-Rishawi the terrorist, for Muath al-Kaseasbeh, the Jordanian pilot, is not the same as the Bergdahl trade last year. 

Bergdahl, a deserter at best, and a traitor at worst, was traded for the release of 5 Taliban terrorists at worst, and Islamic terrorists at best from Gitmo. 

Eric Schultz from the State Department made the case that the Taliban is not a terrorist group but an "armed insurgency." This Obama butt-boy claimed that "we don't pay ransom, we don't give concessions to terrorist organizations." So by this logic, the Taliban cannot be a terrorist organization because we made a concession. That's what we call an argument from fallacy:

We only make concessions with non-terrorist organizations.
We made concessions with the Taliban.
Therefore, the Taliban is a non-terrorist organization.

What we need to consider, in order to determine whether or not the Taliban is a terrorist organization, is our observations and the answers to the following questions:

1. If the Taliban was designated a terrorist organization during the Obama administration in 2010, and identified Hakimullah Mehsud and Wali ur-Rehman as specially designated global terrorists, has anything changed to declassify the Taliban as terrorists?

2. Does the killing of 141 people, 132 of them children at a Peshawar school by the Taliban, qualify them as terrorists?

3. Does the use of Improvised Explosive Devices, used to indiscriminately kill human beings, qualify the users of such devices (i.e., the Taliban) as terrorists?

If you still think the Taliban is merely an "armed insurgency," you might be a lberal.

Tweet

Deal of a Life

Not even her hairdresser knows

Jordan has finally agreed to release "the sister of the Caliphate," Sajida al-Rishawi, a one-time Islamic beauty queen, whose explosive vest failed to go off and kill innocent civilians in a Jordan hotel back in 2005. She wants a "do-over," I suspect. 

By releasing the fetching hijab-covered Sajida, ISIS said it would release the Jordanian pilot held hostage, but left Japan in the dark about their journalist who they planned to behead as they did with the other Japanese man who was killed.

By dealing with the enemy of human life, the door has been left open over the issue of negotiating with puss-bags. When asked about Jordan's position, Jen Psaki, State Department spokes liberal said that every country "has the ability and right to make decisions.," but added, "we don't make concessions to terrorists."

Unless it's to trade five Islamic terrorists for a deserter and traitor. But it must not be important since she wasn't pinned down with a question about that deal.

Eric Schultz (no relation to Ed Schultz, who isn't human to begin with) said that U.S. policy insists "we don't pay ransom, we don't give concessions to terrorist organizations," tried to distinguish the current proposed trade with the terrorist scumbag-traitor trade (i.e., 5 Taliban for 1 Bergdahl) by claiming it was part of an "end of conflict interaction." He then threw more bull excrement claiming the Taliban are an "armed insurgency," while ISIS is a "terrorist group."

Honestly, how stupid does this administration think the American people are? I thought after the Gruber nailing they would have learned their lesson, not to insult our intelligence. But then again, they did fool the left into thinking Obama can walk on water. It was easy to do because Obama believes it himself.

Sajida exposes herself

To say the Taliban is not a terrorist group is an insult to terrorist groups. When you shoot a woman in the back of the head for showing her wrist, what would you call them, a disciplinary team?

I think the trade Jordan plans to make is actually a good one. Surprise! I believe so because the pilot, Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, is a valuable asset with all the training he has received. That is not to minimize the propaganda value of the hottie who wasn't hot enough to go off. She may go off in the future, which would be a tragedy. Hopefully, she will go off prematurely and kill a few comrades along the way. (Does she get 72 virgin dudes when she goes?)

We don't know what Kenji Goto the Japanese journalist's fate is going to be. I don't think my making a prediction matters one iota, but I can only hope they make him part of the deal. 

I don't know how much Jordan cares if they deal for the journalist or not. After all, he is an infidel.

Tweet