Know your enemy!

Nine out of twelve jurors were all for giving Moussaoui leniency because he had a bad childhood which, as Mark Steyn points out, is the problem with putting war crimes in the hands of jurors (especially, I might add, jurors who probably spend way too much time watching Oprah). I mention this as a prelude to this link about the appalling murder of Atwar Bahkjat, a kidnapped Iraqi journalist. Who were the kidnappers? The usual Islamosadists who use the name of God to justify killings that would make Nazis glow with delight. No childhoods, no matter how bad, can justify the offenses this religion visits on people.

UPDATE:  It turns out that while the video shows real footage of a typical Islamosadist torture/slaughter session, the victim is not Atwar Bahkjat, but some poor Nepalese man.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. says

    One of the reasons why they didn’t give Moussie death was their justification that Moussie didn’t know enough about 9/11, therefore he was not responsible for killing or through negligent lies which prevented the salvation of those on 9/11. Assuming this is true, the jurors were not unanimous about this for death, why was he given life in prison, which has been argued successfully to be Worse than death?

    It makes no legal justification to give someone a worse punishment based upon less severity in crime and with more reasonable doubt.

    If he isn’t guilty enough for death, then I have to wonder why is he guilty enough for life, in the minds of the jurors. I’m trying to picture their logic, taking into account that they are 12 different people. But there isn’t a lot of info out there, except the Yes/No questionare they signed.

Leave a Reply