christianity browsing by category


Pro-Abort Attacks Pro-Life Protestor, episode #345,645

Sunday, January 6th, 2008

World Net Daily has an article about another attack by a pro-abortion extremist against those who practice their freedom of speech and question the killing of children. This happens quite often although the media ignore it.

Pro-life activists are calling for an investigation into – and possibly prosecution of – police officers who responded to a severely injured abortion clinic sidewalk counselor, but then allowed his suspected attacker to leave the scene.

“It is unbelievable that an officer would allow an attacker to go free after inflicting life-threatening injuries on an elderly gentleman, then threaten to arrest the witness to the crime,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue.

“That was not only unprofessional conduct, but it showed a fundamental lack of respect for Mr. Snell’s life and beliefs. She should face serious discipline.”

The attack happened just before Christmas, as Ed Snell, 69, was trying to counsel women entering the Hillcrest Abortion Center in Harrisburg, Pa., according to witnesses at the scene.

The “police” officer, obviously a person who should be fired and thrown into jail for obstructing justice, let the assailant walk away!

Pro-aborts act violently against pro-lifers, or just threaten it like here, from

also blogging: Culture Jam for Life

Real Martyrs

Monday, December 10th, 2007


With the left-wing and jihadist media glorifying “martyrs” who aren’t really martyrs but murderers, it’s important to show who true martyrs are, and how they give up their life for others instead of murdering innocents. Two Muslims from Turkey who converted to Christianity and a German national were murdered by evil terrorists. Michelle Malkin has the entire story.

Bible Verse

Saturday, July 28th, 2007

I haven’t posted a bible verse on here I don’t think so I thought I’d share this one.

I recently posted a bulletin about a video on myspace that makes light of abortion and throwing babies into dumpsters. I guess the video was “black humor” pointing out how insane abortion is, BUT some pro-aborts took it the wrong way and said it was “funny.” One woman sent me this scripture, and I found it relevant and uplifting.

2 Timothy 3:1-4 (Amplified Bible)

1BUT UNDERSTAND this, that in the last days will come (set in) perilous times of great stress and trouble [hard to deal with and hard to bear].

2For people will be lovers of self and [utterly] self-centered, lovers of money and aroused by an inordinate [greedy] desire for wealth, proud and arrogant and contemptuous boasters. They will be abusive (blasphemous, scoffing), disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy and profane.

3[They will be] without natural [human] affection (callous and inhuman), relentless (admitting of no truce or appeasement); [they will be] slanderers (false accusers, troublemakers), intemperate and loose in morals and conduct, uncontrolled and fierce, haters of good.

4[They will be] treacherous [betrayers], rash, [and] inflated with self-conceit.

Becky Garrison hates free speech and conservative christians

Friday, July 27th, 2007

Last update:
Garrison posted my original comment on her blog and called it “funny” and “tragic.” It’s tragic to stand up for innocent human beings?

It’s tragic how blind she is. She approves hateful, vile and mean-spirited comments that advocate violence against conservatives (torture Cheney and have Bush mauled by a bear), call Jesus a “superfraud” and promote the sexual exploitation industry. And she called MY comment vile. Hahaha! That’s hilarious, if it weren’t so tragic. What a mean-spirited person, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone so blind and against dialogue. She just wanted pro-abortion monologue and can’t handle debating.

As stated in an earlier post, I recently got a request from Becky Garrison’s myspace to be added as a friend. I accepted the friend invite Garrison even though she’s ultra-left wing and bashes conservatives in her book, Red and Blue God. I posted a comment that pointed out that it’s leftists who have the plank in their eye since they advocate child murder via abortion and infanticide, and it is the conservatives who have only the speck since at least they don’t advocate murder. I also pointed out that McLaren’s teachings are often in line with Gnostic teachings, which is a heresy.

She didn’t approve the comment because she said it was “mean-spirited and vile” even though she approved anti-Semitic, anti-Christian comments, sex shop ads as comments, and she also approved a comment that included a link to a movie that compared blacks to monkeys.
She also blocked our common sense journal myspace profile since we posted a comment she disagreed with or challenged her leftist dogma. So I e-mailed her from another account:


I recently posted a comment calling you to task and trying to start a dialogue from my common sense journal profile. But instead of approving the comment, you blocked me. Why? You sent a friends request and I approved it and sent a comment, and I thought you would send a comment but you blocked me, I guess because you can’t handle dialoguing with people you disagree with?

If you are not lying when you said you add people to start a dialogue, how is it a dialogue when you just block people who disagree with you? You’re not tolerant if you only approve comments you agree with.

Perhaps you don’t add people to dialogue, but rather to hawk your book? Do you not believe in an open and robust debate?

Also I would just like to know, are you against abortion and homosexuality and prostitution? Not meaning we treat homosexuals badly, but I am asking if you are against it. I really would like to know because you sound VERY left wing.

She wrote back:

Your comment did not invite dialogue but was very mean spirited and vile – I get enough of that already on the God’s Politics blog. I have had many “intelligent” conversations via MySpace and Facebook. I’m a registered indepdendent. And Brian McLaren is no heretic – judging is God’s job.


Interesting. So I wrote this back, and blocked the profile I was writing from:

Why did you block surfers of faith and common sense journal? Why not have an intelligent discussion, instead of blocking people who point out holes in your argument? How do you call yourself a follower of Christ when you block other followers of Christ when they don’t toe the political line you follow?

Actually your book is offensive, and your profile is vile (it contains anti-semitic, anti-christian comments and porn ads). But it’s called freedom of speech, and I still read stuff I disagree with. What was offensive about my comment? Because it said abortion is murder? Because it said that it’s the leftists who have the plank and the conservatives who have the speck? Many left wing organizations have opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which meant to save BORN babies from “botched” abortions. What is offensive about pointing that out?

As for being vile and offensive, you have comments on your profile that promote drug use, sex shops, and a video that compares blacks to monkeys. You have an anti-Semitic comment and anti-Christian comments. And you call my comment that is Christian and conservative “vile”? Who are you to judge?

My comment wasn’t “vile” it just offended you because you disagree with it. Don’t try to judge me, that’s ridiculous.

Don’t assume I am not intelligent because I disagree with you. I am very intelligent, probably more intelligent than you, what was your Graduate Record Examination score? I could have a very intelligent conversation with people who are open minded to the possibility that they are wrong. But you are too blind to see that.

As for McLaren, a lot of his writings are in line with Gnostic thinking, which is a heresy. How is that judging?

Besides, you’re the one attempting to judge me because I disagree with you. Judging is God’s job, not yours.

So I take it you don’t object to homosexuality, abortion, and prostitution? You didn’t answer my question. I would love to debate you but you don’t play fair by blocking people when you disagree with them. I don’t care if you block people you disagree with until you’re alone talking to yourself, but it’s not consistent with a free and robust debate.

Why add people if you block people that post comments pointing out where you are wrong? You approve porn, anti-black, anti-semitic, and anti-Christian comments that are really vile, and my comment was not vile but it just offended your dogma. The fact that you blocked us is vile, but I don’t care. No follower of Christ would shun a person for disagreeing with them. If you want to start a dialogue then e-mail me at but I already know you won’t because you are too dogmatic to consider opposing points of view. My comments were nowhere near “vile” and it’s disgusting and evil to even say that they were.

Garrison is not an independent or moderate, she is an extremist leftist who blocks people who challenge her pro-abortion, leftist, I-will-block-you-if-you-are-conservative dogma.

Becky Garrison the anti-Christian propagandist

Thursday, July 26th, 2007

So on our Common Sense Journal myspace profile we got a friends request from Becky Garrison, the leftist “Christian” who has written a book that supposedly picks on both left wing and right wing Christians. From her myspace profile:

In my book Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church, I take aim at the battles between the warring political factions in America’s churches and illuminates both the plank in the Religious Right’s eye as well as the speck that blinds the Progressive Left.

The weird thing is is that I’ve already gotten a friends request from her on 4 or 5 different myspace profiles I run for other political organizations or religious web sites. Is she sitting there adding people all day? Or using a friend add bot?

I accepted her friends request and posted a comment. I said basically that who is she to say who has the speck and who has the plank in the eye? What’s worse, killing a baby via abortion or newborn murder (born alive infants) or throwing a baby into the dumpster (a left wing “virtue”), or wanting to lower taxes, a more conservative virtue? Isn’t it conservatives who have the speck, since they are at least not advocating murder and are for responsibility, and leftists who have the plank, who advocate abortion and are soft on crime such as murder and rape and try to find excuses to blame society or the victim?

What about conviction, the concept of sin and redemption, and personal responsibility?

I don’t necessarily toe the line on some Republican issues, for example, I am for the right for people to defend their house with a gun, but not for assault weapons. Not surprisingly, gnostic-”Christian” Brian McLaren has enorsed her book as well as a web site called Landover Baptist that bashes the church using the Straw Man fallacy, but doesn’t offer any good examples of a church. I also asked as a side note if she uses a Friend Adder bot since I’ve gotten so many requests from her on multiple profiles.

I predicted she wouldn’t approve the comment, since leftists only are tolerant if you agree with them, and therefore are not tolerant at all.

The next day she wrote back, after of course not approving the comment:

I don’t use a bot adder but add sites that I feel might want to dialogue – if you don’t want people adding you, then you can set your settings to private. BG

No duh! I didn’t mind the friend invite and I actually approved and commented. So I wrote back, paraphrase:

Becky Garrison:

I didn’t mind your friend invite, I was just wondering why you keep adding all these different profiles I run, and if you use a spambot or something. You say you want to dialogue, so then why didn’t you approve the comment? Do you only approve comments from atheists/leftists/gnostic christians, or people who disagree with you as well? Do you only appove comments that bash Christians? You didn’t approve our comment, but you approved a comment that featured a person throwing the cross into a garbage can. Interesting.

You don’t want dialogue, otherwise you would have e-mailed me and approved the comment. Feel free to post a comment on our profile, and we can respond for dialogue.

I didn’t hear back, so I went to my sent folder and noticed that she had blocked me. So much for “dialogue.” She doesn’t add people she wants to dialogue with, but rather she adds people to hawk her book that bashes anyone who is a follower of Christ who is also conservative and not a leftist. And if you post any dissention to her leftist and misguided/ignorant dogma on her myspace, she blocks you.

She wouldn’t approve a comment with meaningful dialogue about how she cherry picks from the bible and only quotes verses that agree with her leftist dogma (not really any verses like that, but they can be taken out of context and twisted to “fit” leftist stance. The devil tried to use scripture for his purposes as well). But Garrison approved the comment of a person throwing away the cross in a trash can, as well as these comments, all on her profile as of July 26, 2007, many of which are from many months ago. She could have deleted them or not approve them:

becky garrison myspace sicko
A person named Nick left this comment yesterday, which Garrison approved. Apparently Garrison’s version of “Christianity” involves torturing people. Interesting.

whores of babylon
The whores of babylon were sure to post a comment.

sex workers show
Garrison allowed the Sex Workers organization to promote their porn and prostitution on her myspace page. Didn’t Jesus say “go and sin no more” to the prostitute? Oh wait that would require common sense and a moral guide.

Bush featured as a mullet-wearing inbred.

smoking pot
Garrison let someone promote illegal drugs on her profile as well.

Someone supporting Fidel Castro the communist dictator and comparing some conservatives to a fictional villain from G.I. Joe commented this idiocy.

sicko porn promoting
Garrison let this “pornifier” promote himself on her profile, saying he has written a “sacrilegous work” that is pornographic.

Another bong company.

Comparing Bush to the devil is an lazy way of not actually debating.

Another violence-advocating image, this one features a bear mauling President Bush.

Uh oh, cue the obligatory leftist anti-Semitism! I wonder if Garrison owns a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


Garrison approved a photo that makes fun of a girl crying.

Garrison let her profile promote a video that compares black people to monkeys.


Atheists promoting themselves and comparing a belief in a higher power to a belief in a flying plate of spaghetti.

An image that makes fun of handicapped people, or is an advertisement for a spambot friend adder?

atheist idiots
An atheist promoting his site on Garrison’s profile calling Jesus Christ a “superfraud.”

sex workers
Yet another advertisement for a pornography business.

An image falsely stating that America is the biggest purveyor of violence in the world. Actually, Islamic terrorism is.

So to summarize, Garrison pretends to be tolerant but only tolerates porn, dehumanization of women through prostitution, militant atheism, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic comments but won’t approve a comment that challenges her misguided/errant leftist dogma. She doesn’t add people to dialogue, but rather to hawk her book, even if those people she adds aren’t people but just other spammers.

Book Review: End of Faith by Sam Harris

Thursday, May 17th, 2007

I read The End of Faith, a book by a militant atheist named Sam Harris. The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, is a meandering polemic against faith and people of faith.  It pretends to be “scientific” but ends up being even more unreasonable than most of the people he criticizes.  For example, he is against the idea of a divine creator of the universe, but he himself believes in psychic phenomena, reincarnation and other meaningless, improvable New Age bells and whistles, Eastern voodoo and “denying self consciousness” poppycock.  He brings up a few isolated incidents of extreme intolerance such as the Spanish Inquisition, where a few thousand people died in horrible and sickening murders, and then unscientifically generalizes those isolated incidents to “prove” that faith is the cause of all harm in the world.

If we look at it by the numbers, more people that DID NOT believe in God have murdered others than the number of believers who have taken up the sword.  Take, for example, the Nazi regime as well as the millions killed by the atheistic cult of Communism.  Stalin killed way more people than any believer in history.  Although fellow militant atheist Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett fail to realize this as well. 

How does Harris try to deflect this inconvenient truth?  He says that Communism was a “religion” too.  There are more recent examples as well.  It was two unbelievers–the Columbine killers–who denied God, or at least hated Him and murdered a Christian martyr for her belief.  Of course most Christians are smart enough to realize that this doesn’t make all atheists murderers, unlike Harris’ fallacy of association. 

The positive aspects of this text deal with his points against political correctness when it comes to criticizing Islam. 

He also points out how moral relativism is a self-contradictory stance, which is refreshing from someone who is secular. 

But his intolerance goes very far:

“Given the link between belief and action, it is clear that we can no more tolerate a diversity of religious beliefs than a diversity of beliefs about epidemiology and basic hygiene.” (46)

Harris notes that the Bush White House has small prayer groups and says that this should “trouble us as much as it troubles the fanatics of the Muslim world.” (47).

He compares believing in a higher power to believing in a Greek myth such as Zeus (47)

Crisis queen Harris also says we must stop believing in God or the we will not survive the next few centuries or even decades.  (47) 

“We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it. Given the present state of our world, there appears to be no other future worth wanting.” (48)

He also complains that kids are “killing themselves over their books.”  He does not point out that only Islamist suicide bombers are the only ones killing themselves for their book.

He points out that violent offenders are sometimes paroled to make room for drug offenders.  This is the either-or fallacy.  Why can’t we just make bigger jails?  What about crack cocaine, which ruins people’s lives?

Harris, after complaing about a few religious people in history who killed people for not believing (although non-believers have killed many more believers by far), he advocated killing people just for believing!: “Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people.  If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense.” (53)  So is Harris really advocating killing people because of something they believe, even if they are not threatening the non-believer? This is evil.

Unlike most of his liberal kin, Harris advocates more war: “We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.” (53)

On the positive note, Harris does point out how many liberals are unwary or unwilling to recognize the terror threat: “He [writer Paul Berman] also points out that liberal thinkers are often unable to recognize these terrors for what they are.  There is indeed a great tradition, in Berman’s phrase, of “liberalism as denial.”  The French Socialists in the
1930s seem to have had a peculiar genius for this style of self-deception, for despite the billowing clouds of unreason wafting over from the East, they could not bring themselves to believe that the Nazis posed a problem worth taking seriously.  In the face of the German menace, they simply blamed their own government and defense industry for warmongering.

Harris says, “What constitutes a civil society?  At minimum, it is a place where ideas,
of all kinds, can be criticized without the risk of physical violence.” (150) But wait a second, Harris just advocated killing people because of their ideas!

Harris goes beyond Glover’s (Humanity, 140) pining for a UN international force and world court and calls for one world government: “We can say it even more simply: we need a world government.” (151)

Complains that “we are the “last civilized nation to put ‘evildoers’ to death”
(157) and is against capital punishment but later justifies war deaths.

Harris then strangely tries to separate religion and mysticism: “Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not.  The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion.” (221)

Speaking of consciousness, Harris also states, “we know enough at this moment to say that the God of Abraham is not only unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man.” (226)

Harris equates faith with “ignorance, hatred, greed” and even calls it “the devil’s masterpiece.” (226)

Harris then tries to blame all societies woes on the scapegoat of faith, even though non-faith has led to more death and misery. “Western leaders who insist that our conflict is not with Islam are mistaken; but, as I argue throughout this book, we have a problem with Christianity and Judaism as well.  It is time we recognized that all reasonable men and women have a common enemy.  It is an enemy so near to us, and so deceptive, that we keep its counsel even as it threatens to destroy the very possibility of human happiness.  Our enemy is nothing other than faith itself.”  (131)

While admitting that the Nazi and Soviet communist regimes were anti-Christian, he points out that some church leaders throughout history have been anti-Semitic and that the Nazis merely “inherited” this hatred from Christians.  Harris also blames the Holocaust on none other than the Jews themselves: “The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles on themselves.  This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth.  Prior to the rise of the church, Jews became the objects of suspicion and occasional persecution for their refusal to assimilate, for the insularity and professed superiority of their religious culture-that is, for the content of their own unreasonable, sectarian beliefs.  The dogma of a ‘chosen people,’ while at least implicit in most faiths, achieved a stridence in Judaism that was unknown in the ancient world.  Among cultures that worshiped a plurality of Gods, the later monotheism of the Jews proved indigestible.  And while their explicit demonization as a people required the mad work of the Christian church, the ideology of Judaism remains a lightning rod for intolerance to this day.” (93)

He also says, “It seems little wonder, therefore, that it has drawn so much sectarian fire.” (94)

Harris pretends the existence of children born with no limbs, species that no longer exist, and the emergence of Hitler and the H Bomb are proof that God does not exist, calling the consideration of free will bad philosophy and bad ethics. (173)

He also compares unborn children (human fetuses, blastocysts in his words) to non-human animals, saying we have to understand the relationship between mind and matter to know how we should treat them. (174) and he says to “not think.”

Harris calls the God of Abraham a “ridiculous fellow” and “capricious, petulant and cruel” (173)

Harris does finally admit there are many examples of good people with faith: “It is true that there are millions of people whose faith moves them to perform extraordinary acts of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.  The help rendered to the poor by Christian missionaries in the developing world demonstrates that religious ideas can lead to actions that are both beautiful and necessary.  But there are far better reasons for self-sacrifice than those that religion provides.” (78) Harris never lists these reasons.

He calls people that have faith “mad.” (71-72)

Not surpisingly, Harris supports the killing of human embryos to learn more about the body.  He errantly says that the cells only have the potential to become a human being, but they are already a human being, scientifically.

He also misleadingly states that Christians would then believe that cells from a nose a humans as well, since we can take any cell and insert it into an egg using nuclear transfer to clone a person.  He mockingly asserts, “whenever the president scratches his nose he is now engaged in a diabolical culling of souls.” (166-167) No, Harris, a living embryo is a human being, a single nose cell is not.

He then lied and stated that the U.S. House of Representatives “voted effectively to ban embryonic stem-cell research on February 27, 2003.”  Did he lie? Yes. They may have curtailed federal funding for the killing of embryos, but it was not outlawed.

Wacko Harris then insanely says that a fly is worth more than a human embryo! “No rational approach to ethics would have led us to such an impasse.  Our present policy on human stem cells has been shaped by beliefs that are divorced from every reasonable intuition we might form about the possible experience of living systems.  In neurological terms, we surely visit more suffering upon this earth by killing a fly than killing a human blastocyst, to say nothing of a human zygote (flies, after all, have 100,000 cells in
their brains alone).”

He states that “the point at which we fully acquire our humanity, and our
capacity to suffer” remains an open question. Really? So a newborn is not a person? Peter Singer would agree.

He states that those which acknowledge life begins at conception have nothing but “ignorance” to bring to the debate and equates them with flat-earthers. (167) Give me a break. Science is on the pro-life side: human life, scientifically, begins at conception. Those that deny this are the flat-earthers.

He also complains about Bush’s opposition to abortion and calls it “unreason.”  (167) Do you really believe that? That saying it’s wrong to kill an innocent human being is unreasonable?

Overall, I did get some good points from Harris, but he fails to convince a reasonable person that religion has done more harm than good. To combat unreasonable intolerance, we should not preach more intolerance, as Harris does.  There’s also a helpful review of three of these books on National Review.

China executes a group of Christians

Wednesday, November 29th, 2006

Read the article here

Jose Angel Gutierrez is an evil racist. Where’s the outrage?

Tuesday, October 17th, 2006

racist idiot

Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor at University of Texas, Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida political party stated: “We have an aging white America. . . . They are dying. . . . They are ******** in their pants with fear! I love it!” “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.

And since 1970, he has professed, “Our devil has pale skin and blue eyes.”


What an evil turd. Here’s a video of him talking as well as other racist latino devils. I feel sorry for other hispanics, who are normal and not racist and are here illegally, to be even the same race as this evil piece of mung.

Armando Navarro, Professor of UC Riverside calls for “Artillery” to attack Americans… why isn’t this racist turd in jail, either?

Racist Joe Baca, CA State Senator, states that he is happy there are so many latinos out in the crowd. He then says, “We’re in a civil war.”

John Updike Bashes Christians. Yawn.

Saturday, June 24th, 2006

The novelist John Updike has a new book out called “Terrorist,” where he tries to “understand” why the terrorist wants to kill innocent people. How original.

I was reading the most recent issue of Details, the ultra-liberal magazine that has about 20 ads before the articles begin. Updike proved himself to be an over-pretentious anti-Christian bigot. It’s kind of strange, the interviewer states that Updike is a Christian, but then Updike compares Christians to Islamic terrorists and that people of faith should not have faith anymore, at least if they want to be “cool” and not have faith (perhaps subscribe to the groupthink of atheism?). Here’s an excerpt:

Q: What do you think of the fundamentalist-Christian movement here?

A: I know how they feel–it’s the way my young character feels in my new book. His faith feels threatened by the modern world. But that’s the way it is. And you have to learn to live with it, and if you choose to keep some faith, you have to realize that you’re doing it kind of against the tide.

So, “fundamentalist” Christians, (Christians who believe in fundamental truths like murder and rape are wrong, for example) are compared to Islamic terrorists.? *Yawn*. Is this the best they can come up with?

It’s easy to attempt to dismiss an idea by associating with something unrelated. Islamic terrorists are not evil because they believe in a religion–they are evil because they support killing innocent human being in the name of religion (or in the name of anything, really). Terrorists also brush their teeth (well, some of them do), but that does not make brushing your teeth evil, or anyone that takes care of their pearly whites a “terrorist.”

The Nazis wrote with pens, but that doesn’t make writing evil. What are terrorists nefarious for? What were the Nazis infamous for? Killing innocent human beings. And sadly, that’s what liberals do, whether it is defending terrorists themselves (especially if they’re Islamic terrorists), murderers like Mumia Abu-Jamal, or defending abortion, infanticide, and leaving the disabled to die.

And what “tide” is Updike talking about? A tide of people losing their faith in a higher purpose, some kind of meaning, in favor of . . . what? A pseudo-religion of atheism or humanist religion? The atheist cult of communism killed millions of people, far more than any religion has (though Islamic terrorists would kill many more people if we were not stopping them)? I don’t think many people are turning from God; even if some people do doesn’t make it wise or correct.

I guess I should expect such faith-bashing from Details. After all, the other month they featured an article on gays from the army making porn, and the writer for Details joined in while he wrote it. Sick.

Muslim Terrorists Admit to Beheading Christian Schoolgirls

Saturday, May 13th, 2006

Terrorists in Jakarta:

Seven suspected Islamic terrorists have confessed to beheading three Christian schoolgirls on Indonesia’s Sulawesi Island, police said on Wednesday.

The seven detained suspects confessed under questioning that they planned and carried out the October 29 beheadings in the Sulawesi town of Poso, police chief Lieutenant Colonel Rudi Sufahriadi told The Associated Press.

Another girl was wounded but spared by the assailants, he said.

Two of the suspects also say they have ties to Noordin Top, regarded as a key leader of the al-Qaeda-linked group Jemaah Islamiyah, according to Central Sulawesi police chief Brigadier General Oegroseno.

Indonesia has arrested scores of militants belonging to the al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah terror group in recent years.

Jemaah Islamiyah has been blamed for a series of suicide bombings in Indonesia in recent years, including two separate strikes on the tourist island of Bali.

Evil and disgusting.

Others blogging: Michelle Malkin, California Conservative, HoyStory, Pros and Cons,