Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 12/29/2007 View Fri 12/28/2007 View Thu 12/27/2007 View Wed 12/26/2007 View Tue 12/25/2007 View Mon 12/24/2007 View Sun 12/23/2007
1
2007-12-29 India-Pakistan
Al-Q: We don't strike women
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by tipper 2007-12-29 14:57|| || Front Page|| [10 views ]  Top
 File under: Taliban 

#1 They just bomb them (Itak), stone (Afghaistan), rape them (Algeria, Sudan).
Posted by JFM">JFM  2007-12-29 15:41||   2007-12-29 15:41|| Front Page Top

#2 True, FM, but as I said, AQ would handle this as a hot potatto, and denny. I think that in this case, they weren't on it, and the "intercepted phone conversation" is an ISI-made disinfo.
Posted by twobyfour 2007-12-29 16:19||   2007-12-29 16:19|| Front Page Top

#3 oh please. They don't strike women. Pshaw. Such a joke from a culture that condones stoning, as JFM already noted.
Posted by Whomong Guelph4611 2007-12-29 17:20||   2007-12-29 17:20|| Front Page Top

#4 They prefer the softer target of little girls not women. Perhaps that's what he means.
Posted by Intrinsicpilot 2007-12-29 17:46||   2007-12-29 17:46|| Front Page Top

#5 Suuuure Al-Q don't strike women.

Unless the women are Joooooo, or Christians, or not wearing potato sacks, or working, or stating an opinion, or breathing, or ....

Wankers.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut  2007-12-29 18:07|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/]  2007-12-29 18:07|| Front Page Top

#6 Of course, the "We don't strike women." is a lame statemen, no one in their right mind believes that.

Question is, did they do it?

I don't think so--there is a plenty they are responsible for, but this just does not have the AQ op feel to it. All the AQ alleged statements seem to be manufactured by someone ahead of time for misdirection purposes--to point a finger squarely on AQ.

I don't think that Perv was on it either, 's not in his interest to have this mess in his hands. He could handle Bhutto with a relative ease.

So, qui bono?
Posted by twobyfour 2007-12-29 18:52||   2007-12-29 18:52|| Front Page Top

23:24 Old Patriot
23:11 Redneck Jim
23:04 Redneck Jim
23:01 Redneck Jim
22:49 Redneck Jim
22:43 Redneck Jim
22:39 Redneck Jim
22:02 Ptah
21:14 Barbara Skolaut
21:12 Barbara Skolaut
20:36 KBK
20:36 swksvolFF
20:12 DarthVader
20:09 Brett
19:59 DarthVader
19:51 Leonard Plynth Garnell
19:42 Iblis
19:35 Tholuter Mussolini3070
18:52 twobyfour
18:45 dogsbody
18:22 Barbara Skolaut
18:17 Barbara Skolaut
18:13 Barbara Skolaut
18:07 Barbara Skolaut









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com