Hizb'Allah's New Body Armor

The Party of Allah has issued new, high-tech body armor to its agents in southern Lebanon. This new armor is expected to stop any and all weapons the IDF may plan to use against Hizb'Allah.

bodyarmor2.JPG

UPDATE: SeeDubya notes "Actually, they’ll probably try this, and it’s pretty close to what they’re doing already, so I shouldn’t laugh."

Thanks to Stix and Banter in Atlanter for the links.

Posted by: Ragnar at 01:42 AM

Comments

1 lol is that photoshop from Counter-Strike Terrorist model?

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2006 02:34 AM

2 I see the followers of Mohammed in a different harness.

Posted by: Aaron's cc: at July 31, 2006 03:25 AM

3 This body armor has amazing powers. Worn by Hezbolla it repels bullets but worn by an Israeli to turns into a big red bulls-eye!

Posted by: Cindy at July 31, 2006 05:52 AM

4 The history of the Mohammedans is one of pedophilia and matricide, starting with the big throat-slitter and pig anus himself, Prophet Mohammed (Goats Be Upon Him).

Mohammed was a pedophile, that is a historical fact.

Posted by: Darth Vag at July 31, 2006 07:08 AM

5 Slightly OT, but I was just watching Washington Journal on al C-SPAN, and a lefturd caller from New York, who called himself "the Human founder of the Human party", said that it was un-Christian to fight against terrorists. Well, I'm the Sane founder of the Sanity party, and I say not only is it permissable to kill terrorists, but also anyone who gives them aid and comfort.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 07:31 AM

6 This old chestnut just won't die. The sexual age of consent in the West at the same time as Mohammed's life was not fixed in law. Royalty could marry very young, and consumate it at menarche, which is what Mo did, even in the low end estimates of his youngest wife's age. You are not criticizing Islam when you call him a pedophile---you are applying modern standards of morality upon the past. Such marriages were far from unique to Islam, and were not uncommon even in the US in the 18 and 19th centuries. The sexual age of consent in many American states in the 19th century was 12, and was 7 in Delaware. The early feminist movement had it raised, mostly to keep wealthy capitalists from marrying 11 year old working class girls.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 08:25 AM

7 I should add, though, that child marriages in Islam today are an obscenity. We stamped it out first, and they should stamp it out now. Many gulf state Arabs travel to India and Pakistan to "marry" girls as young as 8, who are sold into marriage by their parents. That is heinous and disgusting and immoral. Why don't the same standards apply to Mo? Well, in one sense, they do, but they would also apply to Charlemagne, who had multiple wives, concubines, and some very young brides...

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 08:28 AM

8 It doesn't matter what you say about this, not jd, a man that had sex with a 9-year old is a pedophile, no matter the age or time. I realize there were marriages of convenience and of royalty, but any 60-yr. old who wanted sex with someone that young ain't right in the head. Period. Stop making excuses for this sicko. And because others were sick does not excuse Mo.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 08:31 AM

9 Joe--the point is that if you are going to criticize Mo for this act, then you have to recognize that it was common in the culture which produced Jesus. It's intellectually similar to saying that "Christianity is the religion of slavery" because for centuries, its founders tolerated slavery, and told slaves to accept their condition. That critique, like yours of Mo's "pedophilia" ignores the fact that the ancient world widely accepted slavery, as it did very young marriage.

I'm sure you and I agree that slavery and child marriage are wrong. And I'll oppose either practice, anywhere in the world, today. But to cudgel Mo for this, without cudgeling the historical sins on your own side, is just silly. It's the same deal as when far left critics of America pretend that they can ignore everything Jefferson wrote and everything Washington did, simply because both men owned slaves.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 08:43 AM

10 Incidentally, Joe, I'm posting as notJD because I was banned for something that has not yet been explained to me. For the record, I never called for anyone to be banned, and defended IM and G. rooster's right to post racist, homophobic, personal attacks, and even defenses of the Klan. I don't think I've attacked anyone personally, beyond calling GR "gay rooster" after he hoped I died of AIDS with my "Muslim boyfriend". Can't imagine what I was banned for, but I'm sure someone will explain it.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 08:50 AM

11 Yes, notjd has a point--sort of. The child-bride thing was/is weird, but's certainly not anyone's main beef about Islam today.

We need to stay focussed on its use of terrorism.

Posted by: youngbourbonprofessional at July 31, 2006 09:09 AM

12 JD, you equivocating piece of shit, Christians do not worship Charlemagne, or any other pedophile, but muslims do worhsip mohammed, who is documented as a pedophile in his own biography. I hope you die soon in a terrorist attack, but I hope it takes you a long time to die from wounds, and that your pain is great.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 09:10 AM

13 Excellent point. we don't worship Charlemagne. But some of us in the west carry around a big ol' book, called the Bible, maybe you've seen it. In it, we revere the heck out of David, Solomon, Abraham..not a single one of them obeyed our standard vision of marriage. If you did an ID check of Solomon's dozens of wives, dozens (hundreds?) of concubines...are you sure you wouldn't find ten year olds? In any case, would it be a valid point against Christianity or Judaism that several of their key founders (moses, david, solomon) practiced polygamy and/or concubinage with underage women? Let it go. There are much better reasons for opposing Islamo-fascists, as professional points out, wisely. There are two problems with using the "Mo is pedophile". One, it ignores comparable historical problems in Christianity's history. Two, it alienates all Muslims, not just the terrorists. I believe our president--this needs to be a war within Islam. If we gratuitously insult Muslims, they are unlikely to ally with us.

Incidentally, the interpretation of the hadiths varies as to her age. It is not clear that she was nine. That is one interpretation. But even if she were...get over it. Applying modern moral values to prior historical conduct is usually an intellectual sin of the left.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 09:30 AM

14 YPB. I think the pope said that Islam's treatment of women in modern times is an issue the west should push? 60 percent of all forced marriages in Britainare associated with the Mulsims.The age of censent inthere is 16.

So were not talking about willing marriages were taLkingmarriages where the woman or girl is forced or coerced into this. Many times under theat of an Honor killing.

Child brides are commen I did a post on those too. It's not so much that Christians never married young and some still do. But such marriages under Islam outnumbers all the rest of these put together. Seems to me it says something when one cult outnumbers all the rest in this.

Posted by: Howie at July 31, 2006 09:44 AM

15 NotJd: For you to say that pedophilia and slavery were common in the culture that produced Jesus and stating that Mo and Jesus needed to be regarded in a similar light is asking for an expressone-way ticket to hell! Of course it was a sick culture that produced Jesus, because Jesus is the remedy for a sick world! Mo was a temporal pedophile/terrorist while Jesus is immortal/savior. Hope that gets you on the right track! :)

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 09:45 AM

16 I agree with notjd. Not only were mores different, but I question the historical certitude of early accounts of Mohammed.

And we certainly need not dig in the past for reasons to revile the shameful state that Islam has fallen into. One babyhunter equals a thousand pedophiles in my mind.

Regardless of what many think, there are good Muslims out there. A vanishingly small minority, to be sure, but a minority worth encouraging. Belittling their faith is counter-productive.

This is my own opinion, not a Jawa editorial stand.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 31, 2006 10:10 AM

17 Bluto, I totally disagree with the premise that we don't have to dig into the past to expose these Islamists. That is exactly what we must do, because these people want to recreate the past, a past where the Caliphate murdered, enslaved, raped, looted and destroyed everything they could in the name of old Mo. That is one of the major problems we face in exposing these people. They seek a return to the Dark Ages, and if we don't wise up, they will succeed. In case you didn't know, Rome was not destroyed until the aquaducts were damaged beyond repair. Think about that. The barbarians couldn't defeat Rome completely until they destroyed the infrastructure that allowed a civilization to exist in the first place. There are ramifications in this for the West, and we need to know the history of these people. This is another good reason that no more Muslims should be allowed to enter the West or the US. They are nothing but a fifth column, and whether they are radical today or not, the potential exists for the future.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 11:06 AM

18 And jd, I don't think you should be banned, for whatever that is worth. And I haven't seen you post anything that I think you should be banned for. But this is not my blog.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 11:26 AM

19 The civilized Christian West abandoned child marriage long ago, but the uncivilized muslims still practice it, along with honor killings, revenge killings, cousin marriage, etc. ad nauseum. We are civilized and the muslims are not, and no amount of equivocating by idiots like jd can change that.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 12:05 PM

20 We abandoned cousin marriage? Damn, why didn't the message get to grandma in time! (it is legal in 26 states, although six have requirements like you have to over 55 or one of you has to be infertile).

But Bluto is right. And, I also think that focusing on the past, to the extent that specific Islamic practices are proposed for return, as Joe points out, makes sense. So let's all agree that forced marriages, honor killings, the status of women, underage marriages, are all topics that reform elements within Islam must be encouraged to change. And prevent their return. Iran was a very liberal society from 1950-1979, a modernizing secularizing culture. They went backwards, because the shah killed so many liberals, leaving only radicals. There was only one alternative to his evil rule--islamofascism. Many took it, never believing it would be worse. It was/is.

Oh, and if Jesus came to save us from child marriages, he took his sweet time about it, last gasp. Ditto for slavery. Here you have this savior, who NEVER mentioned that slavery was wrong, and it was all around him? (Mo didn't either).

Hmmm...I'm telling people to avoid calling Mo a pedophile to avoid alienating all of Islam, but I'm raising Jesus' treatment of slavery and child marriage at the risk of alienating Christians...double standard, I guess.

Posted by: notjd at July 31, 2006 12:54 PM

21 But, you see, jd, we Christians don't intend to kill youfor your statements. Quite a difference, I'd say.

Posted by: jesusland joe at July 31, 2006 01:16 PM

22 Damn right, Joe, and a difference I appreciate. Even if I had been trying to offend Christians, I know you would not have chosen violence as the response. I've been doing some reading on the middle ages and the Reconquista, and when Islam and Christianity met on the battlefield, sometimes each would abuse the others' symbols, in order to rally their own troops and shock/scare the enemy. And it was an era in which someone would choose death rather than, for example, stamp on the cross (or kiss it, in the case of Jews and Muslims). That era is still more alive in the Muslim world than our own.

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 02:18 PM

23 Bluto, ifyou want to coddle the crybaby "good " muslimesso as not to be counterproductive andshock them out of there trancelike following of " kill the infidel " doctrine, wellthat is your choice in a free country. I, and a few others have different plans for them!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 03:09 PM

24 NotJD: There is little in the Bible about Jesus saving us from any earthly abominations of our own making. It is all about saving our souls for the life hereafter. That is sort of what Jesus meant when He said: " Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's and unto God what is God's "

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 03:11 PM

25 Larry: the "crybabies" are not "good" Muslims. The good Muslims are keeping their mouths shut. A few of them actually speak out against Islamo-Fascism. Example: Muslihoon, who writes for Vinnie at Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 31, 2006 03:27 PM

26 Christians "revere David"? Since freakingnwhen?

Mohammed is viewed as the perfect man. Muslims have a term for it aside from "sunnah." Sunnah means Prophet's Traditions (i.e. live like Mohammed).

I'm so sick of moral equivalence argument which are used so westerners can stick their heads back in the sand in lieu of thinking.

Example//

To live somewhat like Jesus Christians invented monastic orders.

To live like Mohammed Muslims go on jihad, capture innocent people and chop off their heads.

Thinking: not just for rocket scientists.

Posted by: Chip at July 31, 2006 03:48 PM

27 Hey, Chip--I'm sure you are aware of the long tradition of Sufi mystics, who go through spiritual experiences quite similar to that of Christian monks. And of the long tradition of Christian conversion by the sword.

History: Not just a one-sided diatribe for your own prejudices.

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 03:56 PM

28 Leftwing moral equivalence = morons

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 31, 2006 04:13 PM

29 Depends on what you mean by moral equivalence. If we are talking about the 7th century, I don't think christians have any moral superiority. If you are talking about today, yeah, I think we, the West, are better by a lot, in terms of human rights, women's rights, individual freedoms, government, religious tolerance, social values (most of them, anyway--they have some pretty strong community feelings, which can be bad and good). So I guess I will leap in, and call people on attacking Islamic history, when our own history is often as dark and ugly. But I agree with you that people who draw a moral equivalence between, say, the invasion of Afghanistan and Hezbollah rockets on Israel, are not playing with a full deck. Or people who compare beheadings by Al Qaeda in Iraq to Abu Ghraib, and say that they are the same. They are not the same. But it is equally wrong to point to the beheadings as a reason to ignore the murders and tortures at Abu and Bagram and say, hey, they are worse, so we are okay. That's moral blindness.

Posted by: jd at July 31, 2006 04:32 PM

30 >>>If we are talking about the 7th century, I don't think christians have any moral superiority.

Leftwing moral equivalence is dumbing down your thinking. Christians don't claim moral superiority. The Bible makes it very clear that both "David" and I are scumbags in need of God's grace. That's why Jesus died on the cross for us-- because we are not morally superior. We christians are saved by God's grace, not by our "moral superiority." (And by the way, that also shows how ignorant and stupid you Lefwingers are who claim that christians are "hypocrites" for not being morally perfect. Of course we aren't pefect. That's WHY we are christians. duh!!!!!!).

However I do claim that islam is a cult born of a sword-wielding, gold digging pedophile named Mohammed, which has real consequences. And that christianity is born of the teachings of Jesus, which also has real consequences.

Jesus does not equal Mohammed, and islam does not equal christianity. End of story.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 31, 2006 04:52 PM

31 Let's get back to the body armor, man, the body armor!
That's sick, as you youngsters like to say these days...

btw, haywood and the better half had a great time up at Oshkosh last week, thanks for asking. Love the fashions, love that you parents out there don't care or know how much lil' Kelli and her friends are showing off.

Hey, I hope they're all of the age of legal consent! Being American, I have naturally high levels of testosterone. And naturally advanced intellect, so I know better.

Posted by: haywood jablowmi at July 31, 2006 05:45 PM

32 what gets me is that their holy book makes it a point to state the poor "bride's" age at marriage and upon consumation. it's as if it was an important thing that needed to be known, tho I'm sure I can't imagine why. it seems to be almost a point of pride with those people.
for sure, our Biblical heros had wives and concubines but if the number is noted, it's not the pivotal point of the story.
oh- and as a mother of 6, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DOES IT, DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!

Posted by: middleagedhousewife at July 31, 2006 05:52 PM

33 The way I see it, from everything I know of them, I can't see first-century Christians wearing the Hizb'Allah "body armor." In fact, I don't see them wearing ANY armor.

From everything I know of Mohammed and the 7th-century Muslims, I can totally see them wearing the body armor if they thought it'd give them even a slight edge in battle.

Of course, this "armor" wouldn't have given one much of a fighting edge back in those days--unless your enemies were laughing too hard to fight. This armor is only useful in a time of civilization, Western guilt, live news feeds and a 24-hour news cycle.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 31, 2006 06:10 PM

34 JD, just because old laws are still on the books in 26 states doesn't mean that people still marry their cousins, but the majority of muslims do still marry their cousins as a matter of practice. A Pakistani told me he is married to his first cousin, and both their parents were first cousins, etc. ad infinitum. It keeps the wealth in the family, and reinforces family bonds, and is considered an acceptable risk despite the occasional horribly deformed or stillborn baby.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 31, 2006 06:56 PM

35 Or worse yet an occasional Mad Hatterdinnerjacketpizzaface!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 07:21 PM

36 A good muslim keeps his mouth shut, heh? I guess that means he agrees with you. Or then again, if he agrees with you wouldn't he be talking? Help me out here ... in the meantime I will consider a Muslim to be good once they realize they are following violent doctrine, and I might even like them if they convert to Christianity! Bottom line, if you are lieing in a gutter dieing, are they going to help you or will the eye of Allah be upon them urging them to let the infidel die?

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 07:31 PM

37 Oh yes, I know there is that lady professor who has spoken out and got the Ayotollahs all upset with her. I commend her for that! They can rewrite and delete all the bad shit from the Qua'ran. Then it would fall alongside all the other cardboard religions. At least a step up. But there are many more steps to ascend to Heaven. Or only One. That's the Zen of it! Have you accepted Christ as your personal saviour? :)

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 31, 2006 07:41 PM

38 I'm still trying to figure out what classifies this body armour as "new", or is this a lighter variant on the wailing Um in full hijab, with scruffy urchin and crying baby that we still see in other areas?

Rather than debating Mohammed's paedophilia, what we should be keeping our eyes focused on is the ninth, or "Sword" Sura of the Qur'an, which is the one that provides the jihadis with their divine mission to wipe us all out. Well, one eye on that, and the other on all the people both in Europe and in the US who feel that even a tiny, minor, fleeting jab at the US and those who support her, is worth a thousand lifetimes of the dhimmi-tude they'll bring upon themselves (and whatever few of the rest of us who survive the purges).

As to the comparison between the Bible and the Qur'an~ there isn't one. While many atrocities have been carried out in the name of the Bible, they are done *in contravention* of G-d's word. In the Qur'an, followers of Islam are called on *to COMMIT* atrocities, which are laid out in detail. Christianity, while asserting the desire of bringing all souls to Christ, still recognizes the human dignity inherent in every person God created. (If it weren't for this, we would probably still have slavery to this day). In the Qur'an, everyone who isn't a Muslim has no worth whatsoever, and is subject to (and owed) whatever treatment a Muslim cares to mete out to him. Originally there was some leeway given to Christians and Jews as "Children of the Book", but that was overturned by several subsequent revelations, and we now all rank lower than beasts of burden. The Qur'an exhorts Muslims to take what groups of us they don't kill and sell us into slavery. One reads fairly frequently of cases where Arab Muslims (generally Saudi's) get busted here in the US for practising (still!) slavery. Not a whole lot of that thing going on with Christians. Nor do Christians do to practisers of other religions what Muslims in non-Western countries do: in Saudi for example, you can't wear any article of clothing, jewelry or accessory denoting any faith whatsoever, you can't legally own a Bible, you can't meet in groups of more than two (or maybe it's one now), and you can't even legally speak to your children about Christ.

And these are the fine, noble folks that the Left is bending itself into pretzels to promote. Over all of our "Evil", "Nazi", "Fascist", "Christian fundamentalist", Militarized and Brainwashed, Red State, First Ammendment-clinging Americans who really want nothing so much as to be done with all this B*S*, all the moral relativists and all these repugnant, filthy, and disgusting people.

Posted by: Katje at August 05, 2006 08:53 PM






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0086 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0046 seconds, 46 records returned.
Page size 32 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.