Well, as anyone who has been paying attention for the better part of this decade knows, Muslims of a certain stripe don't take kindly to anyone who doesn't follow their customs and way of life.  Recently, a British woman living and teaching in Sudan was jailed for the reprehensible crime of naming a class teddy bear "Muhammed."  Wait, scratch that.  She didn't name it, she merely allowed her class to name it.  One boy named Muhammed actually suggested the name, after his own. 
What happened next, I'm not sure, but somehow this woman ended up in a Sudanese prison.  Better still, she faced a maximum sentence of prison time or forty lashes.  Forty lashes with a bamboo cane no wider than a finger has the potential to cause serious permanent damage. 
Now, as those who pay attention expected, come the calls for her death.  For her death!  Who, pray tell, put out these calls?  Osama bin Laden?  Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad?  No, nobody so grand.  Local imams preached on the subject today, and afterwards their followers massed for a protest, brandishing knives and clubs and demanding this British woman's execution.
This is clear evidence of the effect of just kernels of radical Islam on a population.  Where it is allowed to fester, the populace is soon consumed with a violent antipathy towards non-Muslims and a complete disregard for common sense. 
The article states that many British Muslim groups have come out against this action.  This is commendable!  I have often lamented that the very people in the best position to quash radical Islam - moderate, pro-democracy Muslims - are nearly always silent by choice or by cowardice or by coercion.  The more moderate Muslims speak out against things like this - like the Saudi rape case, like the honor killing which took place in London itself - the more progress will be made against our mutual enemy.

And why is Britain even tolerating this?  Was a time when the British commandos would have stormed that prison, relations with a pissant little country like Sudan be damned.  Shouldn't the lives of British subjects be protected from unjust persecution in foreign lands?  This woman committed no crime, and should be freed immediately.  She may not last the 15 days in that jail cell before a mob comes and carries her to her death. 

Woman raped before "honor killing": court

Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:54AM EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an "honor killing" carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man.

Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.

Her badly decomposed body was found in April 2006, three months after the killing.

Last month a jury found her father Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, guilty of murder after a three-month trial. Their associate Mohamad Hama, 30, had earlier admitted killing her.

On Thursday at a pre-sentence hearing for Hama, the Old Bailey heard details about Banaz's last moments.

Prosecutors said the three convicted men, along with two other suspects who are still at large, had carried out the killing fearing that the authorities were closing in on them.

They believed Banaz had brought shame on the family by leaving her husband, an Iraqi Kurd she had been forced to marry at 17, and falling in love with Rahmat Suleimani, an Iranian Kurd.

Her former unnamed partner had raped her as well as repeatedly beating her, the court heard.

Hama, who prosecutors said had been a ringleader in the murder, was caught by listening devices talking to a friend in prison about the murder.

In the recordings, transcripts of which were relayed to the court, Hama and his friend are hearing laughing as he described how she was killed with Banaz's uncle "supervising".

"I was kicking and stamping on her neck to get the soul out. I saw her stark naked, only wearing pants or underwear," Hama is recorded as saying.

His lawyers say there is no evidence to support the prosecution's claims.

The decision to kill her came after a meeting on January 23 -- the day before she was murdered -- when the family decided to take action before the police could foil their attempts, said prosecutor Victor Temple.

Hama is due to be sentenced on Friday with Mahmod Mahmod and his brother, Ari.

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

This is one of those areas where Western Civilization has a lot to offer the Islamic world.  We don't do this to our daughters. 
So, what do we do?  Talk this out with them?  Explain to them why it was wrong to stomp on the girl's neck and that they are very naughty boys and mustn't ever do this again, no sir? 

This is how they live, this is their world.  We are fighting tribal barbarians with psychotic ideas about honor who show no compunctions about killing their own daughters to avoid shame.  They don't understand diplomacy, you idiots.  They understand bullets, so let's give it to them before this happens again.  This is the Islam we are fighting, not the happy religion of peace that we hear about on TV and that I am sure exists somewhere (I really am sure it does, despite my rancor). 
And this is where liberals will always fall flat.  Because they talk about women's rights and they talk about peace and they talk about all these wonderful things -- but when the time comes to stand up and eradicate the evils they decry, they balk.  They shirk their responsibility and argue in favor of doing nothing, and I can't for the life of me understand why.

Talk.  Talk yourselves to death, they don't care.  A culture that believes in this sort of thing is one that believes only the weak talk about their problems.  The strong realize their will by force or threat of force. 

This happened in England, damn it.

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Governmentbacked study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades - where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem - because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history 'as a vehicle for promoting political correctness'.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into 'emotive and controversial' history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting 'anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils'.

It added: "In another department, the Holocaust was taught despite anti-Semitic sentiment among some pupils.

"But the same department deliberately avoided teaching the Crusades at Key Stage 3 (11- to 14-year-olds) because their balanced treatment of the topic would have challenged what was taught in some local mosques."

A third school found itself 'strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the state of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination'.

The report concluded: "In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship."

But Chris McGovern, history education adviser to the former Tory government, said: "History is not a vehicle for promoting political correctness. Children must have access to knowledge of these controversial subjects, whether palatable or unpalatable."

The researchers also warned that a lack of subject knowledge among teachers - particularly at primary level - was leading to history being taught in a 'shallow way leading to routine and superficial learning'.

Lessons in difficult topics were too often 'bland, simplistic and unproblematic' and bored pupils.

This is just a bit off to me.  So, because these Muslims don't agree with the historical fact of the Holocaust they drop it from the lesson plan?  That's not the right way to do things.  I like how the piece throws in the fact that some Christians are complaining too.  Well guess what?  Same standard applies.  History must be neutral.  The facts are the facts, and if they are documented then they are documented.  We shouldn't pander to these Muslims, nor should we pander to Christians living in denial about history.  If they want to pass, then they have to learn the material.  Should the subject prove too difficult to retain, then they should be accorded the failing grade.  That simple.  Fail the idiots.
If I were to disagree with the French Revolution and demand that it be left off the curriculum because I believe it may have ruined Europe, would that happen?  Nope.  No matter how strongly I believe that the ends didn't outweigh the means in that upheaval, I still have to learn about it.  Now, as a thinking person I recognize that learning about things I disagree with helps me to better make a case against them!  But then, I'm not trying to deny the very existence of the Revolution.  That would take stupidity that they mostly breed on the other side of the Atlantic.  Or in British mosques. 

Fancy that.

I ducked out of the news for about a day and came back to find out that British sailors had been captured by the Iranians.  Captured!  By Iranians!  Apparently, these Persians believe that the Brits were violating territorial waters.  This happened in 2004, and satellite imagery proved their claims to be out and out lies.  What do these people have to gain from prodding the West?  It would seem that they are trying to provoke an outright confrontation over five Revolutionary Guards found in Iraq.  Return the Guards, get your Brits back.

The news at present is that these British men (and a woman) may be tried for espionage in Iran.  The punishment for spying in that country is death. 

Nuh-uh.  Sorry.  Geneva Convention, as dox^2 brought to my attention.  Course, maybe they'll be real hard cases and decide that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them, instead of looking for loopholes like we did with our enemy combatants.  Fine piece of lawyering, that.

What, I say again, what do these people have to gain from getting involved?  Territorial claims to the Shatt-al-Arab?  Partitioning of Iraq when the West inevitably* withdraws in shame and defeat?
The Ayatollah has allowed for the use of illegal means to get their nuclear program up and running.  Even if they do not wish to acquire nuclear weapons, this is troubling.  Yes, nuclear energy is a good thing and I think we should utilize it on a global scale...but I would posit that it's different to produce radioactive material in their region than in the much less turbulent American one.  Oversight of their program is not too much to ask, but they don't want any international involvement which damages their credibility. 
Qatar has reported that a fisherman claims the Britons were in Iraqi waters. I trust him over Mah-moody Ahmakillthejews.

*by inevitably, I mean never until we have achieved our goals.  And by partitioning, I mean we assassinate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and partition his body into quarters -- that's how we do it in the West.  Drawn and quartered, courtesy of us barbaric House of War types.  We'll use a horse and tree method, or perhaps two horses.  A horse will be involved, however.