The Times Square Bomber

October 6th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

A Pakistani immigrant who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square was sentenced Tuesday to life in prison by a judge who said she hopes he spends time behind bars thinking “carefully about whether the Quran wants you to kill lots of people.”

A defiant Faisal Shahzad smirked as he was given a mandatory life term that, under federal sentencing rules, will keep him behind bars until he dies.

“If I’m given 1,000 lives I will sacrifice them all for the life of Allah,” he said at the start of a statement that lasted several minutes.

Worth reflecting that if he was in NZ, he would have only got a maximum 14 year sentence for attempted murder and be eligible for parole in five years.

Shahzad, a 31-year-old former budget analyst from Connecticut who was born in Pakistan, responded that the “Quran gives us the right to defend. And that’s all I’m doing.”

This is the scary thing. This was not some young impressionable teenager, or an unemployed school dropout with no future. He had a good education and good job, and then decided that his interpretation of his religion means he must kill people.

He added: “We do not accept your democracy or your freedom because we already have Sharia law and freedom.”

I guess the desire for Sharia law and its version of freedom is why there are so few female Islamist terrorists.

Tags: ,

31 Responses to “The Times Square Bomber”

  1. Murray (8,835 comments) says:

    “We do not accept your democracy or your freedom because we already have Sharia law and freedom.”

    Not in America you don’t.

    I have no problem with those things, they have places for them, its not in the western democracies. Feel free to go where they exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    Worth reflecting that if he was in NZ, he would have only got a maximum 14 year sentence for attempted murder and be eligible for parole in five years.

    Because the offence of terrorist bombing under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 – with its maximum penalty of life imprisonment – wouldn’t apply for some reason?

    [DPF: I knew Graeme would correct me if there was some other offence. Does it apply if the bomb does not go off?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    It would be so much more interesting if there was a huge scare of a bomb in Mecca, by an American Fundamentalist faction.

    The Nutters could then focus on bombing the crap out of each other, and leave all the moderates in peace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    “carefully about whether the Quran wants you to kill lots of people.”

    You mean like

    Quran: 9:111, Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran.

    Quran-4:74- Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory (i.e. killed or be killed) – Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).

    Quran-4:95- Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons (sacrifice both life and wealth) than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward.

    Quran-8:39, And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere

    this is one of my personal favourites

    Quran-9:29, Fight those who believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (Islam), even if they are of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Quran-8:65: “O Apostle! Rouse the believers to fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred; if a 100 , they will vanquish a 1,000 of the unbelievers..”

    Quran-9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.

    47:4- “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”

    9:123: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”

    2:191- “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. hubbers (204 comments) says:

    Scary. All the story books are full of this kind of rubbish. Perhaps it is time for people to look somewhere else to find their values. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Landscape-Sam-Harris/dp/0593064860/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1286314201&sr=8-2

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Murray (8,835 comments) says:

    “Story books”?

    Most peole don’t design their lives around obeying the directions of FUCKING STORY BOOKS hubbers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Psycho Milt (1,982 comments) says:

    …the “Quran gives us the right to defend. And that’s all I’m doing.”

    This would be the defence tactic “Surprise mass slaughter of non-combatants,” presumably. It’s been used often enough, but no-one’s ever come up with a theory of how exactly it’s supposed to work – probably because it’s not really about defence but about killing people you hate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. andrei (2,431 comments) says:

    Most peole don’t design their lives around obeying the directions of FUCKING STORY BOOKS hubbers.

    hubbers does – his story book is called “The Moral Landscape” and it’s by Sam Harris.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    It’s only going to get worse I think. On October 4th Germany’s president made a speech welcoming Islam in his country –

    Germany celebrated the 20th anniversary of its reunification on Sunday, with President Christian Wulff saying during a speech celebrating two decades of reunification that Islam had a place in the country.

    President Wulff holds a largely ceremonial position but is considered a moral authority for the nation.

    He used the televised ceremony to wade into a debate over immigrant integration that has captivated public attention for weeks.

    “First and foremost, we need adopt a clear stance: an understanding that for Germany, belonging is not restricted to a passport, a family history, or a religion,” he told an audience in the northern city of Bremen.

    “Christianity doubtless belongs in Germany. Judaism belongs doubtless in Germany. That is our Judeo-Christian history. But by now, Islam also belongs in Germany,” he added.

    I don’t think he really understands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. tvb (3,945 comments) says:

    That wretched religion seems to bring out the most fanatical behavior. Even in someone who is at first blush rational and intelligent. There is something about Islam that makes them incompatible with all other religions. So far as immigration policy is concerned we MUST not admit any immigrant from a country of the Islam faith where extremism is an accepted fact Call that discrimination if you like but if you do not discriminate in immigration policy then you do not have an immigration policy. You just let everyone in. We are a predominantly christian country and extremist Islam is incompatible with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    ps, another quote from Shahzad –

    A defiant Shahzad said “Allahu Akbar” — Arabic for “God is great” — after the judge sentenced him to the mandatory life imprisonment.

    “Brace yourself because the war with the Muslims has only just begun,” he told the judge before he was sentenced during the 30-minute hearing. “The defeat of the US is imminent and will happen in the near future.”

    When Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum asked Shahzad, who was sporting a beard and white prayer cap, that he was an American citizen and that he had sworn an oath, he replied, “I did swear, but I didn’t mean it.”

    He may be right; the defeat of the US may be imminent if the US keeps ignoring Islamic threats, like that to Molly Norris.
    There is a lot of double standard in the US. When Molly Norris was threatened, and people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, who receive death threats all the time, it is ignored by the MSM in the US. When Daisy Khan, the wife of the developer of the Mega-mosque in the US, says that she has been threatened in a telephone call, suddenly it’s in all the papers and the NYPD is providing her protection paid for by the taxpayer.

    Spencer says on Jihadwatch.com

    No law enforcement agency, in contrast, has ever offered me or any other anti-jihadist ongoing protection at taxpayer expense.

    But the main question, and principal double standard, here is this: why is Daisy Khan’s claim to have received a death threat headline news, while death threats to cartoonist Molly Norris, which have driven her into hiding and led her to go so far as to assume a new identity, are not noted anywhere? Why are death threats to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Wafa Sultan and others taken so much as a matter of course that the twenty-four hour guard under which the former two live is barely even noted by the media?

    The answer is that this is yet another example of the Left’s paternalism and ethnocentrism. The multiculturalist Left, allied with and aiding the global jihad, consistently holds those jihadis, and Muslims in general, to a lower moral standard than it demands of the West. So death threats to Daisy Khan and Feisal Abdul Rauf, if any have actually been made to them, are a kind of man-bites-dog story: even as the Left professes to love non-Western cultures, especially Islam, and to respect Muslims, it expects Muslims to threaten people like me, but is surprised when they themselves are threatened.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Murray
    I have no problem with those things, they have places for them, its not in the western democracies. Feel free to go where they exist.

    Islam has a global intent and the Umma think globally though they live locally, Do you understand what you are saying there?
    What you’re saying isn’t helpful as long as Islam and Sharia stays the same, because we will be pursued as we are Dar al Harb.
    Also if you tolerate Sharia elsewhere then you are saying it is ok for people to be enslaved and when enough people in a territory (%) want it then you have no moral right to stand against it.

    Remember there are people in Sharia compliant countries that aren’t Muslin and they live lives as Dhimmi. They are treated as 3rd class citizens behind Muslim women who are 2nd class and they were also born there in those territories.
    I do urge you to think through the implications of what you’ve said.

    Intent.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/4/islamic-flag-over-the-white-house/

    Interesting commentary on global reach from both sides.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/4/dueling-fatwas/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. lastmanstanding (1,154 comments) says:

    Fletch Yes agree with you. I find it pathetic how the Muzzies can threaten and the so called western authorities just shrug their shoudlers.

    Yet If I or any other whitey threatened a Muzzie leader the whole crapola would descend on us and we would be locked up without a trial on terrorist charges.

    Its just another case of the PC culturally stupid brigade frightened to stand up to the bad guys and protect the good guys.

    If it wasnt so serious and will affect all of us Id say “well you were warned dumbarses” when the enevitable happens.

    But by then it will be too late

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    Suits the Socialist running dogs to distract us all with Immigration whilst they are busy stealing more money from us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    [DPF: I knew Graeme would correct me if there was some other offence. Does it apply if the bomb does not go off?]

    Yes.

    The offence of terrorist bombing (linked above) can be committed if “a person … delivers, places, discharges, or detonates an explosive or other lethal device…”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. DJP6-25 (1,236 comments) says:

    [tvb 11:07] Yes, it’s just a mattter of common sense, and security.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    Worth reflecting that if he was in NZ, he would have only got a maximum 14 year sentence for attempted murder and be eligible for parole in five years

    ..thats because NZ is a soft cock retarded nation when it comes to justice and sentencing…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    That’s right, Murray. Hubbers is totally wrong. They have to be old story books with some kind of power structure built up around them for MOST people.

    In NZ, would he be deported at the end of his sentence (assuming it would eventually end)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pete George (21,826 comments) says:

    Starboard – read the thread, Graeme Edgeler at 10:08 am. Labour got tough(er) on terrorism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Simon (613 comments) says:

    Just as well these people are such clowns. If they were remotely capable then a dirty nuke going off in Mecca in retaliation would be only a matter of time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    with its maximum penalty of life imprisonment

    ..we dont give maximums PG…we give out about one quarter the maximum..followed by a wet bus ticket slap…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. GPT1 (2,043 comments) says:

    Also Minimum Terms of Imprisonment would apply so the parole in 1/3rd a bit misleading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Rex Widerstrom (5,129 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler points out:

    Because the offence of terrorist bombing under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 – with its maximum penalty of life imprisonment – wouldn’t apply for some reason?

    Be appropriate to edit the “we’re not tough enough on scum” dogwhistle in the original post, wouldn’t it? Granted this guy is scum, but as Graeme points out, there are laws on the book which enable a judge to hand out any sentence he or she likes, up to and including life.

    The offence of atempted murder can be committed by someone who snaps upon finding their partner in bed with their best friend (read that whichever way you like)… or indeed to someone who attempts to dispatch a terrorist to meet his 70 virgins a little early.

    Using this case to imply that yet another tightening of the criminal law is required in NZ is, therefore, complete and utter bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    This is the scary thing. This was not some young impressionable teenager, or an unemployed school dropout with no future. He had a good education and good job, and then decided that his interpretation of his religion means he must kill people.

    It’s a religion of how many billion people? There’s going to be a few psychopathic nut cases just through sheer statistical arse.

    In the west we’re fortunate that most hard-core christian psychopath mass killers tend to recruit their victims into some sort of oddball love-in commune, and then kill them indiscriminately…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I bet Faisal isn’t smirking now, I very much doubt the general prison population in the US hold PC values in much regard. They may be bad bastards but most US prisoners seem to be very patriotic, I’m sure Fiscal will soon be wishing Allah had called for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Bob R (1,253 comments) says:

    This guy is a great advertisement for Geert Wilders & other politicians seeking to reduce Islamic immigration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    RRM
    Daniel Pipes put up some surveys on his website from around the world and it was an average of 30% (from low 20′s to high 40′s) depending on age and location who supported jihad against the west, thought west deserved bombs (especially where they lived in EU) or wouldn’t do anything to alert authorities if they knew of anything going down.

    This guy summarises the heart attitude very well.
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-europe-still-doesnt-get-islam.html

    Debates over swimming classes or a radical mosque here and there are only the smaller branches of a fast growing tree. Because the problem is not merely cultural differences, those can be and have been accommodated. The problem is that Muslims believe that their way of life is morally superior, and that any system or institution that does not follow those laws, is invalid. Furthermore they believe that they have a duty to impose their laws on others in the name of their religion or honor. Attempting to accommodate people who believe this, by accepting their laws in whole or in part, leads to an avalanche effect, with each concession generating demands for new concessions. There is no final point of accommodation to be had, except complete submission to Islam, because those being accommodated never recognize the inherent validity of the system that is accommodating them. Not until it becomes their system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    I agree Rex

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    @MikeNZ – good quote. sultanknish set it out it very succinctly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Manolo (12,637 comments) says:

    Barbaric Islamic teachings have polluted the mind of these gullible, but very dangerous, individuals.
    And worst of all, these criminals are prepared to sacrifice innocent victims in the name of the “religion of peace”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Fletch (5,726 comments) says:

    Here is what Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini said about Islam –

    Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.