Child Beheaded, Wonder What the Attacker’s Religions Is?

Courtesy of my friend Big Dog

Child Beheaded, Wonder What the Attacker’s Religions Is?

Posted at 09:40, at Big Dog’s Weblog, Category: Religion of Peace

A man walked into a supermarket in Jeddah Saudi Arabia, picked up a 15 month old child and cut the boy’s head off with a knife. Shoppers watched in horror as the man raised the boy and hacked through his throat until his head came off. The man who did this was Syrian and he was the boy’s uncle. He did it because he had some dispute with his sister and her husband.

People were horrified and some fainted while others had to go to the hospital for treatment of shock. This happened in Saudi Arabia and the attacker was Syrian so is there any question as to the religion of the man involved? Only people of the religion of peace go around and lop off the heads of their relatives because of a dispute. Only a coward kills a defenseless child and this coward was no doubt a follower of the child molester Mohammad.

“No one could bear the gruesome sight of the boy’s decapitated body lying on the floor,” said Muneer, a Turkish car mechanic, who works at a garage close by. “How could someone do such a thing? I just can’t understand it… I still can’t believe it,” he said, shaking his head. Arab News

This is a low life thing to do and yet these people bring about this kind of behavior. They find it acceptable for adherents to their prophet to cut the heads off people who have committed the crime of being Jewish. These are the same kind of people who cheer as blood thirsty savages hold up the severed heads of contractors captured in Iraq. These are the people who cheer when contractors are burned to death and hung from a bridge and who cheer when American soldiers are disemboweled and butchered.

I think this is a horrible crime and that the man should be put to death but I blame his religion and his society for devaluing human life to such an extent that people kill their own relatives because of a dispute. How many of the horrified shoppers never bat an eyelid when some fanatic sets off a bomb that kills children in Iraq? How many of these idiots feel that it is perfectly OK to be martyred for the cause of Mohammad?

That little boy did nothing wrong and the coward who killed him should suffer the most painful death available. However, there will continue to be these kinds of killings until such time as the radicals who espouse killing for Islam are found and eliminated.

The mother of this boy and the shoppers at the store now know how Daniel Pearl’s family and our nation (and the balance of the civilized world for that matter) felt when radicals sawed his head off. Until they fight back against this kind of brutality, nothing will change.

God have mercy on the soul of this child and may his attacker rot in hell.

Big Dog salute to Sonnabend

Technorati tags: Jeddah Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, Islamic Law, Murder, Decapitation, Brutality, Beheading

Wesley Clark, utter nonsense

Courtesy of my friend Big Dog. BD and I are friends and he is not a member of the forum. So, I thought to post his comments regarding good old Weasely Clark.

Wesley Clark: Hillary More Qualified than McCain on Military Matters

General Wesley Clark, a man who has had his nose up the Clinton’s rear ends (he must be hoping for the SECDEF job) has made a completely asinine statement with regard to John McCain and Hilary Clinton. According to Clark, Clinton is better qualified to be the Commander in Chief by virtue of her jet setting around the world while First Lady than is McCain who actually served for several decades.

In the national security business, the question is, do you have — when you have served in uniform, do you really have the relevant experience for making the decisions at the top that have to be made? Everybody admires John McCain’s service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There’s no issue there. He’s a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot — and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam — that doesn’t prepare you to be commander-in-chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn’t give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues.

If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she’s the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing am abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security. Source: NRO

Now, according to Clark, the issue is having relevant experience to make the decisions at the top that have to be made. Clark believes that McCain had the wrong kind of military experience so he would not be good s the CINC. Hillary, on the other hand, would be wonderful because she has NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE. Instead, she gained her qualifications by visiting 80 countries while First Lady. General Clark was a military man and he believed that he had what it takes to be the CINC. That is why he ran for the presidency in the last election. However, using his criteria, every First Lady in modern history would be more qualified than Clark, McCain or any other military man simply because they jetted around to other countries. By this standard, Laura Bush is just as qualified as Hillary so we should ask her to run because she is evidently more qualified than McCain and a hell of a lot more pleasant than Clinton.

I wonder if this jackass ever thinks before he speaks. He was with that dipstick Captain at the Kos convention trying to intimidate a soldier who happened to attend while in uniform. The soldier was not participating in a rally or supporting a candidate and Clark was unaware of military regulation. Now he is saying that McCain’s military experience makes him less qualified than Hillary who has absolutely no military experience and has spent her life with a general loathing of the military. She treated the military working in her husband’’s White House horribly and somehow Clark thinks this makes her more qualified than McCain.

I am not saying McCain would be the best president in the word or that he does not have flaws. I am sure there are issues the other candidates might have a better grasp of than he but one thing is absolutely certain. John McCain has more experience than both of the others put together and he has far more experience needed to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. John McCain has forgotten more about the military than these two will ever know so if they want to pick on him they should try something that actually makes sense.

Having Wesley Clark make stupid statements about the right kind of military service is not helpful and should Hillary miraculously win and decide that Clark will be the SECDEF we would have to question any statement he made because he has already proven he is incompetent and, like the Clinton’s, will say anything to get a win.

It is Big Dog’s opinion that Wesley Clark is a moron who has no clue as to what it takes to lead as demonstrated by his ridiculous statements regarding McCain and Clinton. What do you think?

Technorati tags: wesley clark, bill clinton, hillary clinton, john mccain, american politics, jackass, commander in chief, armed forces