Suicidal Murderers

I grew up on a remote cattle ranch with no phone or tv. So as kids we played games with each other. One was called “Would you push a button?”. Well, the game didn’t have an actual name, but one of us kids would ask another kid a question like “Would you push a button that would painlessly kill some unknown person in order to collect a million dollars? Then we’d go for variations. “Would you push a button that would deliver an incredibly painful electric shock to collect a million dollars?” Hey, there was no entertainment, and you can’t talk to the chickens …

Anyhow, watching the news lately, I was reminded of that game. Here are the questions for today:

Would you push a button that would blast dozens of innocent civilian women and children to bits with a nail bomb, and wound dozens more, in order to save your own life?

Manchester

Now me, I hope and pray that if I ever had the bad luck to be facing that horrible quandary, the answer I would give would be no, I couldn’t bomb them. I can’t think of anything that I hold so dear that I’d be willing to blow up women and children with a nail bomb to save it. Even my own life. I simply could not live with myself afterward. I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I were to commit such an atrocity.

And I suggest that the overwhelming majority of people living in the industrialized world would feel the same way. Deliberately bombing young girls is never justified.

OK, that was the hard question. The next question is much easier.

Would you publicly blast dozens of innocent civilian women and children to bits with a nail bomb, and wound dozens more, in order to defend, not your own life, but your own religion?

I know of no Christians, no Buddhists, no Hindus, no Jews who would ever do that to defend their religion. Certainly no Baha’i, they actually are a religion of peace. And no Sikh would do that, they are a proud and honorable people. Mormons wouldn’t dream of it, they’re too busy provisioning their basements. And Zen Buddhists, as they say, don’t even think about it …

I know of only one religion where that kind of murderous behavior is not only tolerated but is openly encouraged and supported by religious leaders.

Islam

Only Muslims are getting cheered for bombing people for their religion.

Now, folks always say that suicide bombing represents an “extreme” interpretation of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Pew Trust people asked Muslims, both in the US and around the world, whether blasting dozens of innocent civilian women and children to bits with a nail bomb in order to defend your own religion is ever justified. What was most surprising to me was their finding about US Muslims. One out of eight Muslims living in the US said that “suicide bombing and other forms of violence” at certain times is “justified to defend Islam”. ONE OUT OF EIGHT! That’s not “extreme”, that’s depressingly common. One in eight is far too prevalent for such a vicious and brutal belief.

So please … spare me the nonsense about how Islam is “just another religion”, or how “we all worship the same God”, or how Islam is the “Religion of Peace”. None of those are true. Far too many Muslims worship a God who thinks using nail bombs on women and children is just dandy. And more to the point, in the year 2017 NOBODY BUT MUSLIMS WORSHIPS THAT GOD!

Finally, bear in mind that these are US Muslims, presumably some of the worlds’ most sophisticated and liberal. Worldwide it is much worse in many countries. In Palestine, the people committing these atrocities have streets named after them and their families are paid a pension in their honor. Another Pew Trust poll shows that on the West Bank, 59% say there are times when suicide bombing is justified. And this is widespread. In Bangladesh it is 61%; Tanzania, 45%; Egypt, 59%. Even in so-called “liberal” Indonesia, 22% of the Muslims, almost a quarter, say blowing up civilian women and children is sometimes justified.

So no, the bombing in Manchester is not a result of “extremism”. It is the result of a far-too-prevalent Islamic belief that killing women and children, as long as they are Christians and Jews, is justified for religious reasons. That is not religion. That is terrorism.

bombing cartoon

Finally, the blood was hardly dry in Manchester before we heard the first cries that we need to watch out for Islamophobia. This is a blatant attempt to deflect responsibility. When something like a quarter of the Muslims worldwide think that blowing up my wife and daughter is OK, being afraid of that group of people is not “Islamophobia”. It is reasonable concern about widespread murderous criminal madness.

The problem is not Islamophobia.

The problem is Islamists, people who think Islam should rule the world and are happy to kill anyone to achieve that … and unfortunately, the Koran itself is Islamist.

I see no simple solution to this, other than to fight it at all levels—military, legal, intellectual, and in the realm of ideas. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the answer has to come from Muslims. Our challenge is to fight this 7th-century horror without losing our own humanity in the process. We need to hate the sin and love the sinners, and that’s no easy task.

However, I figure we’re up to the challenge …

My best regards to all,

w.

Further Reading:

My first post on this subject, complete with cartoons, was

The Problem With Islam 2017/03/10 

I’ll say something that is not politically correct in the slightest, something that a number of people may disagree with, and then I’ll take a bit of time to explain why I think it is true. Let me invite you to set aside all of your current conceptions about Islam for a few moments—you can easily…

This was followed by a companion piece:

The Forever Wars  2017/03/11 

In furtherance of the discussion begun in my previous post, The Problem With Islam, I wanted to take a look at the two Islamic forever wars. If you haven’t read that post please do so, as it forms a necessary prelude to these war stories. While many people are aware that Mohammed was the Prophet of Allah…

Finally, I wrote about the idea of Islamists:

Islamics, Islamists, and Scotsmen 2017/04/05 

Maajid Nawaz is an interesting guy trying to make sense out of his own religion, Islam. Wikipedia notes that he was imprisoned for five years for being a member of Hib ut-Tahrir, a violent Egyptian Muslim group. During that time he had a change of heart, and he renounced his violent and divisive past. As…

Advertisements

45 thoughts on “Suicidal Murderers

  1. suicide bombs yes, however I do need to point out the terrorism in the ’80s in Ireland had different factions building car bombs to target innocents, and there were far too many on each side of that who were Ok with this.

    They were a small percentage of the respective religions, and eventually they were tamed.

    So it’s not quite as black-and-white as you paint it, but the percentages you present worldwide bear very little resemblance to the tiny percentage who supported the Irish bombings

    Like

    • Despite what was being said by the IRA and UDF in Northern Ireland, it was two collectivist organizations going at it to control the remaining populous. Draping yourself in religious colours doesn’t make you religious. In the case of Islam, the other 75% need to get the rest of them under control and soonest. It doesn’t end well if they don’t. As Willis has pointed out previously, 95% of those killed are Muslims. It’s time they stopped.

      Liked by 1 person

    • As someone who was there, I can tell you that “The Troubles” in N. Ireland had nothing to do with religion. They were purely political – about achieving a united Ireland. The protestant versus catholic meme was just a handy label. Nobody was setting off bombs in the name of their religion.

      Like

        • Many years ago during the troubles my wife and I went to a friends wedding in Belfast and stayed a couple of nights. When we were waiting in the church one of the many marching bands went past practicing for what is called the marching season. Our host said it was the biggest display of bigotry you could find as all it was done for was to wind up the other side.

          Like

  2. Willis: a possible solution: http://pickeringpost.com/story/-how-to-stop-a-terrorist-dead-in-his-tracks-/7180

    “So what if we . . . , placed it all in a glass urn and baptised him as a Christian with all the attendant rites and ceremony, viewed through a television network.
    Had he been a shooter his entire body could be used.
    The world must know that every suicidal murderer from now on will be baptised as a Christian post death, thereby negating the rewards of the Islamic belief system. He has never been baptised before because the Koran says he, and everyone else, was already born a Muslim.
    But there is room for being ‘unbaptised’ as an apostate, thereby cancelling out all Islamic promises and copping a certain trip to hell.”

    Like

  3. Muslim leaders have repeatedly said they will defeat the west/infidels because they love death more than we love life. Muslim leaders are just a tiny fraction of islam, the tiny fraction that is IN CHARGE of islam.

    Like

  4. Just have a look at Sam Harris trying to talk a bit of common sense to a fool like Ben Affleck. I don’t know how you get through to these people because proper polling, facts , data and history don’t interest them. Let’s face it a lot of liberals are not very bright.

    Like

  5. Hopefully we are seeing some green shoots starting to show.. as a start the gathering of 50 Islamic countries willing to talk about addressing the terrorists actions is hopefully a start.. and the fact they actually were able to speak of Israel without following it up with “must not exist” is a step.. I know it may very well be the enemy (US) of my enemy (Shiites) is my friend mantra may be the motive.. and rather they are using this as a first step toward a reformation and these states are using it as a power move to control the religion and the region, may also be the motivation… but ever the optimist I am hoping this is a move in the right direction.. and I am keeping at bay my cynical impulses which says it’s just another head fake…

    Like

    • I’m pretty much convinced that all of the meeting to discuss terrorism drama, is pretty much a propaganda and a scheme by the Islamic powers that be, to pretentiously pacify the rest of the world while they cook up more means to propagate more acts of terrorism. At this point, the meetings shouldn’t be to discuss the issue of terrorism(who are we kidding anyway) it should be to discuss the issue of reforming Islam, and admitting that the cause of the terrorism is not extremism, but Islam itself. Islam and its teachings is terrorism, so if anybody tries to tackle terrorism while shielding Islam from scrutiny, its a hoax.

      Like

  6. It is a crooked perception of good and evil. Remember that in 1960s Buddhist monks self-immolated themselves in South Vietnam to protest the government? Their actions helped to overthrow the government, and then thousands of “boat-people” died fleeing the country. Their victims died much later, not immediately. I don’t consider Buddhism evil, but results were the same in the long run.

    Like

    • Curious George writes “1960s Buddhist monks self-immolated themselves in South Vietnam to protest the government” and that their actions helped overthrow the government, thus causing tragedy later for the fleeing boat people.

      This is NOT the same thing. Maybe you voted for George McGovern, pressuring Nixon to pull out, indirectly causing that same harm to the fleeing boat people. That doesn’t make you a murderer ( I did that vote and I am embarrassed for my naivety but a murderer I am not!).

      Killing yourself in public to protest a government is a very strong political statement, but Willis is talking about killing the innocents who did not choose to die. His story would be the same whether the killer included himself or just planted a bomb and fled.

      Like

  7. The differentiation between “Islamic” and “Islamist” is an interesting semantic trick.
    The Crusades was done by Christianists, not Christians.
    “The Troubles” in N. Ireland were unrelated to anything Irish, it was Irishist.

    Like

  8. Let’s face the reality of what this things are; the idea of islamophobia as is being used in the media today is just an attempt by some people that be, to suppress and outcry against the vices of Islam. it’s appalling how people are eager to label anybody that cries out against Islam, islamophobic, why is the truth very hard to deal with?
    Truth Zombie

    Like

  9. A few dead here, a few dozen there,
    September 11: dead – 2,996.
    Manchester: 22.
    Next?

    When the weapon grows more deadly by an order of magnitude, who will finally say enough!
    And then what?

    Trump’s call to “stamp out extremism” ought to be taken literally by Muslim leaders.

    Like

    • Shortly after writing the above, an explosive ladened truck went boom in Kabul.
      The photo on the front page of the WSJ shows some of the destruction.
      It is easy to find others.

      Like

      • An Australian journalist compiled the data re Islamic bombings etc and found that they now average more then one a day around the world.

        Like

  10. Willis, I am very happy that you write about islam, and I agree with what you say. If you haven’t seen them, I recommend http://ibnwarraq.com and https://www.thereligionofpeace.com . I’ve been posting on FB for about 4 years, after really starting to study islam; before that, I’d been a bit naïve about it, although I’m atheist / Buddhist / rationalist / scientific. No, “islam” is not a typo.

    Like

  11. The question, I believe was, “Would you use a nail bomb against innocent people to defend your religion?” The answer should be, without a single extra thought – “No because my religion, if it is truly the right one, need not be defended for its god will defend it.” In fact, no “religion” could be defended by a brutal act of violence. I will never understand that mentality since it is no better than “I’m going to kill a raghead for Jesus,” or the equality idiotic, “good Muslim, bad Muslim, just kill them all and let god sort them out.”

    This is not in defense of Islam, it is in defense of religion. People are the problems, usually, when it comes to religions, and in the case of Islam, it was believing in a usurper, someone that took a basic religious belief and twisted it for his own benefit, that made the difference. Just as medieval popes took the Catholic Church on its dark journey.

    People. Ignorant, gullible, people, being taken control of by those that know better, but chose to do worse. And its always the same, just like the idiots that attack people and places “in the cause of climate crisis.” A cause is one thing, when it is politicized, as religions and causes often are, they become dangerous. And when causes morph into religions, they get even more dangerous.

    Like

    • Brother? You need to study the Qur’an. The Hadiths. Shari’a. Then you will understand that “radical” islam is not an aberration, it is the fulfillment of moohammed’s ideology.

      Like

  12. I have difficulty accepting Willis’s thought that Islam has a major unique problem that results in terrorists willing to commit random acts of murder. My belief is that these acts are a result of the battle between civilizations (whether religious, cultural or nationhood) where there is almost always one strong power and one weaker power.

    During WWII there were many terrorist acts (usually targeting military or quasi military targets) against the occupying forces. During Israels creation in the 1940’s there were many many well documented acts of terrorism that killed the occupying power (Brits) and local Palestinian and Arab populations. Oklahoma in 1995 (many children killed) was ostensibly about an act of revenge for the Waco disaster (where other children died). Many have mentioned the Ireland issue. None of these events were Islamic based. The act in Manchester could be simply a reaction to the occupying wests killing of relatively innocent civilians in any number of Islamic countries currently under assault (and yes, there is a strong religious sentiment therein).

    Currently we have the Saudis and Americans lobbing drone bombs somewhat randomly over Yemen to terrorize the local population. If the defending Yemeni had some drones I am sure they would attack back at one these powers similarly — however we are in a time of radical asymmetric warfare. The only way an Islamic can strike back is a personally directed attack within one of the occupying powers such as the Manchester attack. You may not like it, but during war if you blow up one of my hospitals — I get to blow up one or yours. And the west is at war with Islam without a doubt in the Middle East. In my view this event was not abstract terrorism, it was not a result of the Islamic religion per se, it likely was a reaction to an assault by the west on the institutions surrounding Islamic countries.

    Willis says there is nothing that would cause him to inflict the type of damage that occurred in Manchester. I don’t believe that. I can think of several different scenarios where he (and most rational humans) could be brought to strike back in the ‘right’ circumstances.

    When you import immigrants from a region (or religion) you are also simultaneously assaulting you must accept some blow-back. Could that blow-back be better directed (say a hospital for a hospital, or a wedding for a wedding) rather than a subway or bus? Sure. But it is illogical not to accept that some blow-back should occur.

    Like

    • clandestine attacks against military targets are not terrorist attacks.

      Terrorist attacks target innocent civilians with the intent to strike terrror in the civilian population (thus the term “terrorist attack”)

      If you think the US is lobbing bombs randomly at any target, you are out of touch with reality. They may have faulty intel reports about what is there, but they are going after military targets and while they would love to scare the ISIS fighters into giving up and going home (although Mattis said recently that they have shifted from “attack to get them to leave” to “attack to annihilate them”), they are very well aware of how the press is going to cover any civilian deaths, so they go out of their way to try and avoid them as much as possible.

      Like

      • muslims use children and women as “shields” in order to accuse anyone attacking them of being terrorists. That label is quite useful to them, since all “western” media and leftist politicians take up the cry in order to DEFEND muslim terrorists.

        Like

    • Thanks, George, for this comment. I think you have a typo in your last para: ‘assaulting’ for ‘accepting’.

      A massacre of children which had no religious dimension occurred in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, when Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 primary school pupils and their teacher – using legally owned hand guns.

      With regard to Manchester bomber Salman Abedi, do we really know his motivation? We do know that in January this year the British inland security service MI5 was specifically warned by US officials that Salman Abedi was a security risk and could be planning an attack on a political target in Britain. MI5 don’t seem to have taken this warning seriously. Abedi was not placed on the voluminous ‘Prevent’ register. Under the UK’s 2015 Counter-Terrorism and Security Act, the ‘Prevent’ programme imposes a legal duty on public bodies, and the people who work for them, to spot the early warning signs of terrorist sympathy in individuals, and report them to the police. Manchester police received no such report from MI5. Abedi travelled freely this year to Libya (where his parents live) and allegedly also to Syria. It is almost as if he was under special protection. But who could have been protecting him – and why?

      Here is an extract from an article in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung of 30 May (my translation):
      “According to a spokesman of the Libyan ‘Rada’ militia…Ramadan Abedi (father of the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi) was a member of the militant Islamist ‘Libyan Islamic Fighting Group’ which in the 1990s tried to assassinate the dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi. The Rada militia is currently holding Salman’s father and his younger brother Hashim in custody at the Mitiga airport in Tripoli.
      Ramadan Abedi had to leave Libya in 1991 on account of his Islamistic attitudes and took refuge in Saudi Arabia until 1992 or 1993, when he settled in Britain with his family. Like other Libyan exiles with a similar background he returned to his homeland in 2011 to fight against Gaddafi. His three sons (the bomber Salman, Ismail – currently under arrest in Britain, and Hashim) accompanied him to Tunisia and possibly also to Libya, where he (Ramadan) joined the Tripoli Brigades, which took part in the rebel conquest of the capital. There is a photo of Hashim on the internet, published by his father, showing the son, then apparently aged 15, with an automatic weapon.
      Sources in Tripoli report that the number of Libyan exiles from the Manchester region among the rebels was so high that there was local talk of a ‘Manchester Brigade’. The British inland secret service MI5 is said to have ensured that these people could travel to Libya without hindrance.
      It is possible that this aspect will be considered in the forthcoming investigations [into the Manchester bombing].”

      Hmm. MI5 again. British readers will know that MI5 is supervised by the Home Office, whose chief at Cabinet level is the Home Secretary. And who was Home Secretary in 2011? One T.May, currently Prime Minister of the UK and standing for re-election next week.

      By its nature, blowback is unforeseen and unexpected. But it happens. Providing a refuge to a bunch of Islamist fighters and sending them to help overthrow a foreign government might have seemed a good idea at the time, but such actions can have unwelcome repercussions.

      I agree with Willis that the Koran contains passages promoting a pernicious and degrading ideology (my phrasing, not Willis’s) which enable Islamist fighters to claim justification for their actions. In the long term these passages could and should be deleted by the appropriate religious authorities. However as a practical measure we could stop aiding and supporting Islamist fighters when they take up arms against secular governments in countries such as Afghanistan (in the late 1970s), Libya (in 2011) and Syria (now), and not just wring our hands in despair when they attack targets in Western countries.

      Like

      • “With regard to Manchester bomber Salman Abedi, do we really know his motivation?” Yes, his motivation was islam. When people running around murdering other people tell you why they are doing it accept what they are telling you. The leaders of islam keep telling EVERYONE on the planet what they are going to do, why they are doing it and THEN they do it. Where is the complicated part of this?

        Like

  13. Hello Willis Eschenbach,
    I remember reading (I think it was Watts up With That) a comment you made about the difference between the temperature of your head to your toe on some mountain climb you were doing and that it was equivalent to X amount of global warming.Could you point me to that post please?

    Like

  14. Canada is about to pass Bill m-103 making it a crime to criticize Islam. The prime minister, Trudeau 2.0 is quite the supporter and while speaking in a mosque about diversification acknowledged the people in the mosque including the sisters on the upper level. So while talking about diversification in the mosque totally ignored the separation of women and men. Trudeau, a world class hypocrite.

    Like

  15. Hi Willis,

    OK, lets say Islam ist bad and brutal religion. Next, what to do with the Muslims, and the Islamic countries?

    Send American Muslims home? Or ask them to convert? Or allow them only to stay if they take an oath to follow certain standards?

    Here in Germany we have a discussion about conservatives that any foregnier should confess to something which is called “Deutsche Leitkultur”.

    It is mandatory for each student to get lessons in Ethics or Religious studies. Muslims don’t get them from Imams, but from Teachers who studied in Germany, and using a German syllabus.

    I think what Trump did was no bad Idea. He just started to make business with them, his Daughter aimed to empower saudi businesswomen.

    I would say just integrate them here or there in our daily life. They will see the advatages and change by themself. Not living in ghettos, but within the normal community.

    so they will see and adopt.

    What do you think?

    Like

    • Johannes, interesting questions all.

      The first thing I’d suggest is to slow or stop immigration from countries with active recruitment of jihadis and no way to vet the immigrants. Unfortunately, the lunatics in the judicial system think that is illegal.

      Next, make it illegal to advocate for Sharia Law. Sharia Law contravenes the Constitution and American Law in a number of places. You cannot support both the Constitution and Sharia Law.

      Next, crack down hard on any kind of terroristic activities.

      Next, start telling the truth, that Islam is a terrorist organization and that the Koran contravenes US law.

      As to whether “they will see the advantages and change by themself”, the number of jihadis who are second-generation Muslims indicates that such integration does not always happen, far from it …

      Thanks for the comment,

      w.

      Like

      • What I see in Germany are the Turkish, living here starting from the seventies. They are decent people and honoured neigbours, doing a fine job for providing groceries, restaurants, sevices and handicraft, where Germans have given up because of economic reasons. At least in towns and villages.

        The Problems aer arising in ghettos in cities and in immigrant camps. Having no hope and no furture, makes them to a fertile ground for terrorrism. As only 10% of immigrants are included to the labor market after long years, we can see which problems are arising for the future.

        One solution is simple and difficult: Just provide prosperity for them – here in Germany and there in their Origin and Neighbouring Countries. It will solve nearly every problem.

        Another solution is a bit more difficult: Young people are willing to devote themselves to something meaningful or special and are therefore open even for dangerous ideas.

        So what about to control the information they will get, e.g. through the internet. There is the the idea of free speech in every free country. Where to set the borderline?

        We Germans had the cure of “Entnazifizierung” (De-Nazi-fication?) after WW II, even under American occupation. Is there something like this for Muslims as well?

        Okay this Question I would not dare to ask in Germany, but… it is somehow logic.

        Like

    • Johannes: “I would say just integrate them here or there in our daily life. They will see the advatages and change by themself. Not living in ghettos, but within the normal community.”

      The USA has a long tradition of doing just that and it has worked very well, with some exceptions. If an immigrant came to become American, to assimilate, to blend in, it worked in general, especially for the following generations. Living in ghettos (or just in separate communities) hinders assimilation, and racial separation worked against integration. Imposed or not, it doesn’t matter, the end result is the same. It’s natural for people to group with others of their own culture; it’s not necessarily bad, but there are limits.

      Germany and Europe embarked on a big cultural experiment without studying the American experience enough. A single immigrant is a treasure, a mass immigration is an invasion. There is no pressure to assimilate when you have just moved places but not cultures.

      Like

  16. We are the frog that is being boiled. The water is actually rather uncomfortably hot at present, but we are not yet ready to jump.
    Furthermore, that young whippersnapper who somehow got himself elected as PM of Canada, will soon make it illegal to jump.

    Like

    • As soon as this becomes the law in Canada every Canadian citizen needs to publicly denounce and criticize islam. Mass civil disobedience, the left has used it for decades and it works.

      Like

  17. The problem with the good Muslims … other than the fact that we have a hard time telling them apart from the bad Muslims … is that they don’t do anything or say anything to lead the bad Muslims back to the peace part of the “religion of peace”.

    The mayor of London is a Muslim. Here’s what he didn’t say.

    Khan could have forcibly reinforced the idea that practicing Muslims such as himself are modern citizens who happen to worship Allah, yet do not belong to any kind of belief in the preeminence of Sharia Law which clearly is based on the belief that Sharia Law must be imposed on others, Islamic terror being the logical extension of this imposition. Mayor Kahn could state that the former would not pose a threat to England or the Western lifestyle while the latter would be a “mortal threat.” The danger facing England and other Western nations from the Islamic wave sweeping the Middle East and beyond arises not from the fact that people practicing the Islamic religion are Muslim, but rather from the degree to which they adhere to the totalitarian, supremacist Islamic doctrine of Sharia.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/06/englands_islamic_domino_effect.html

    Like

    • About good Muslims:

      We have the Turkish here in Germany for nearly 50 years, the biggest migrant communty. No problems to live together with them.

      Why?

      They came from Kemalist Turkey, with strict division between politics an religion. So the German system was not really different, and they adopted well.

      But now people come from other countries, already radicalized or open to a mixture of relgion and politics.

      What about education of every migrant about that topics?

      Like

      • “They came from Kemalist Turkey, with strict division between politics an religion. So the German system was not really different, and they adopted well.”

        Excellent point. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was an amazing man. Is there anybody else in the Islam world who has done so much to bring in modern values? Big reforms, including democratization, improved treatment of women, secularism, promotion of education, removal of Sharia Law.

        He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth, and the teachings of science.

        Flash forward to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

        “Erdogan once said that democracy for him is a bus ride,” Abdullah said. “Once I get to my stop, I’m getting off.”

        Like

  18. Pingback: Suicidal Murderers | Skating Under The Ice | Cranky Old Crow

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s