Pakistan student killed over 'blasphemy' on university campus
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39593302
My comment: Millions of excessively brainwashed religious morons provide the breeding grounds for the criminal mobs and terrorists for protecting and promoting Allah.
Church in Alabama wants to create it's own police force]
My comment. Brainwashed morons are everywhere. If we focus on a certain religion, then we are the brainwashed morons. The article ends with a comment by a Muslim comedian.
“But do you think if Muslims in Alabama asked to create their own police force to protect their mosque we would see the GOP members of the Alabama Legislature be as supportive as they are to the Briarwood church?"
Call yourself a religious moron if you like. But not all religions are the same, nor are all peoples the same. When you cannot see major differences, you are a moron, religious or not.
BTW: A part of the statement by the Muslim comedian should educate the morons among the secular and humanist people. (The pseudo-secular and pseudo-humanist frauds, of course, could not be educated.) Dean Obeidallah “notes the death threats sent to Alabama mosques recently, and the state’s ban of shariah, or Islamic law — a measure opponents called unnecessary and Islamophobic."
There is a huge difference between allowing a private police force to protect a church or a mosque and allowing Islamic law to govern the lives of citizens. (Sorry, Lausten, I am quite late in paying attention to the rubbish that you posted here.)
No apology necessary, I don’t judge the quality of a response based on how quickly it comes.
I do judge based on comprehending the full weight of the issue. And once again, you’ve avoided that. You said “private police force” and left it at that, as if it is equivalent to a private security company. Private security has the same rights as anyone, they are just ready with weapons and trained in self defense. Private police in this case means this:
“The proposal to authorize Briarwood Presbyterian Church to form its own police force places a core governmental function, with all the powers of the state, into the hands or a religious institution to exercise at its discretion with no governmental oversight," said Randall C. Marshall, legal director of the ACLU of Alabama.
“It also singles out one particular church out of the thousands of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious entities in Alabama that may have similar concerns, thereby favoring one specific religious group," Marshall said.
I don't care what the differences are between any two churches or any two religions, I'm not going to allow my government to relinquish any of it's power to one of them. Either we change the law, so every church is allowed to arm itself and start handing out tickets for God, or we allow none of them to do it. You don't seem to understand how democracy and freedom work.
And who advocated Islamic law? Where did that even come from? How is putting churches in charge of police going to prevent that?
No apology necessary, I don't judge the quality of a response based on how quickly it comes.
I do judge based on comprehending the full weight of the issue. And once again, you've avoided that. You said "private police force" and left it at that, as if it is equivalent to a private security company. Private security has the same rights as anyone, they are just ready with weapons and trained in self defense. Private police in this case means this:
“The proposal to authorize Briarwood Presbyterian Church to form its own police force places a core governmental function, with all the powers of the state, into the hands or a religious institution to exercise at its discretion with no governmental oversight," said Randall C. Marshall, legal director of the ACLU of Alabama.
“It also singles out one particular church out of the thousands of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious entities in Alabama that may have similar concerns, thereby favoring one specific religious group," Marshall said.
I don't care what the differences are between any two churches or any two religions, I'm not going to allow my government to relinquish any of it's power to one of them. Either we change the law, so every church is allowed to arm itself and start handing out tickets for God, or we allow none of them to do it. You don't seem to understand how democracy and freedom work.
And who advocated Islamic law? Where did that even come from? How is putting churches in charge of police going to prevent that?
Let me agree with Randall Marshall and you on the proposal of Briarwood Presbyterian Church to form its own police force. Heck, I am even against the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. However, that proposal is still qualitatively far different from a state allowing shariah law.
I quoted from the article you referred to (and posted the link of) last time: Dean Obeidallah “notes the death threats sent to Alabama mosques recently, and the state’s ban of shariah, or Islamic law — a measure opponents called unnecessary and Islamophobic." State's ban of shariah is Islamophobic, really?? Well, it surely is not phobia (extreme and irrational fear); it is a rational action for not allowing barbarism in this country. I surely hope that there is no one in this forum who would accept any state allowing shariah in the USA.
I doubt we could have a rational discussion about the meaning of “Sharia law” so I’m not going to try that. And I would suggest talking to anyone who knows anything about law and ask them about banning a category like that. Our system works by debating each new law, not by trying to ban some philosophy. I know you won’t agree with me. That’s why I’m suggesting you find someone you trust who knows about how law is made.
You should start a separate discussion thread on ‘Imperialistic America’, Darron.
But here, are you putting an airstrike on the barbaric Islamic State terrorists that have summarily executed the Yazidi men and taken their women as sex slaves in the same category as the murder of innocent Coptic Christians riding a bus? All wars have collateral unintended civilian casualties; that is why I do not think of war as a civilized thing. However, I have no doubt that the US airstrike was not intended for killing the civilians. Your comparison is tantamount to tolerating what the Islamic State has been doing to the tiny Yazidi religious community.
You should start a separate discussion thread on ‘Imperialistic America’, Darron.
But here, are you putting an airstrike on the barbaric Islamic State terrorists that have summarily executed the Yazidi men and taken their women as sex slaves in the same category as the murder of innocent Coptic Christians riding a bus? All wars have collateral unintended civilian casualties; that is why I do not think of war as a civilized thing. However, I have no doubt that the US airstrike was not intended for killing the civilians. Your comparison is tantamount to tolerating what the Islamic State has been doing to the tiny Yazidi religious community.
The topic is causation, as in the title, "are they really due to...". The link is a perfect example. People who don't have the largest military in the world on their side get killed by that military. You want to dismiss it as collateral damage, further disenfranchising and marginalizing and literally saying you don't care about those people. You are tolerating what the US military does and has been doing for decades. They were doing it long before terrorists starting fighting back. You pick and choose what is a "tiny community". You started this conversation with wanting certain people to be dead and others to live and you've done a terrible job of defending why ever since.
CC provided some links on how Western foreign policy created the atmosphere that led to today’s terrorists. You’ve spent 11 pages ignoring that and repeatedly posting terrorist atrocities without engaging in a cogent discussion about your original question. You don’t want a discussion; you just want to rant about terrorists without considering how Western policies led to today’s problems.
You should start a separate discussion thread on ‘Imperialistic America’, Darron.
But here, are you putting an airstrike on the barbaric Islamic State terrorists that have summarily executed the Yazidi men and taken their women as sex slaves in the same category as the murder of innocent Coptic Christians riding a bus? All wars have collateral unintended civilian casualties; that is why I do not think of war as a civilized thing. However, I have no doubt that the US airstrike was not intended for killing the civilians. Your comparison is tantamount to tolerating what the Islamic State has been doing to the tiny Yazidi religious community.
The topic is causation, as in the title, "are they really due to...". The link is a perfect example. People who don't have the largest military in the world on their side get killed by that military. You want to dismiss it as collateral damage, further disenfranchising and marginalizing and literally saying you don't care about those people. You are tolerating what the US military does and has been doing for decades. They were doing it long before terrorists starting fighting back. You pick and choose what is a "tiny community". You started this conversation with wanting certain people to be dead and others to live and you've done a terrible job of defending why ever since.
You must be out of your mind when you write, ‘You started this conversation with wanting certain people to be dead and others to live and you’ve done a terrible job of defending why ever since.’
In reality, this is how I started this conversation, “Readers/participants, please be advised that it is not about hating Muslims; it is about seeking human dignity and rights for all kinds of people, including those that call themselves Muslims and perpetrate and accept acts of injustice and hatred due to their religious brainwash."
Let me repeat, I think the worst acts of terrorism in the history of the world to my knowledge and understanding were the US nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am no apologist for the atrocities that the West has committed anywhere. In fact, I most likely would have a lot of sympathy for the Muslim terrorists if they were not into committing acts of injustice, hatred and barbarity on the weak non-Muslim groups, such as the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Christians, the Yazidis, the Zoroastrians, etc. in many parts of the world. Not only that, when the Western liberal countries provide them opportunities to live good lives in the West, too many of them want to turn the West into the 7th century Arabia of Mohammad. People like you and DarronS look at terrorist acts by Islamic fanatic on the West, not on the world at large, and you blame the West due to that. You surely need to think about facts like the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US military did not produce Japanese-American terrorists in the USA, and the spraying of Agent Orange by the US military on the Vietnamese civilian population did not produce Vietnamese-American terrorists in the USA.
I am no apologist for the atrocities that the West has committed anywhere.
Then what is this:
All wars have collateral unintended civilian casualties; that is why I do not think of war as a civilized thing. However, I have no doubt that the US airstrike was not intended for killing the civilians.
Sounds like, "well, it's okay because they didn't mean to do it."
I have a viewpoint for Sam. But, I am going to wait for an opening. I am enjoying the postings and it is a very good debate in progress.
Well, you should participate, not to evaluate any individual, but to discuss the topic.
For example, you can talk about the recent terror attacks in Manchester and London, which are surely not due only to British policies. After all, British acceptance of foreigners and respectful treatment of citizens born of immigrant parents have allowed a Muslim to be the mayor of London, a city that is more prominent in the world than many countries.
Pakistan sentences man to death for blasphemy on Facebook
This kind of punishments is actually popular in Pakistan. In fact, in many instances, the mob violence (generally murder) against blasphemers moves much faster than the courts. Surely this kind of brainwash of the population of Pakistan was not done by the West.
In his book Three Felonies a Day, civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate estimates that the average person unknowingly breaks at least three federal criminal laws every day. Oct 12, 2011.
The posts talk about people being sentenced to death and civilian casualties. Now, if we were to prosecute everyone in America committing a felony. We would basically have to incarcerate every person. I really don’t think that we are able to judge what other countries are doing as right or wrong until we ourselves establish a fair and workable system. Maybe we don’t like the way some of the other countries handles their problems. But it is easier to talk about other countries than our own. Example, I use to think that Israel was wrong for bulldozing houses down. Today I am not so sure. And I am not sure what a better and more effect solution would be. Point being there are decisions made by people who must deal with the problems directly. Should we be giving them more credit for what they must work with. Otherwise are we just falling into that political correctness thinking.
This has happened in a state and country where Muslims are minority to the point of about 25% and 14% of the overall populations, respectively. They do not need to be overwhelming majority in the country in order to create hell in a non-Muslim community when just one member of that community is accused of insulting Mohammad. Their excessive religiosity and religious fanaticism are enough to get them too crazy when what they think is their religion is insulted.
There is a perception, including guilty feeling, in the USA/West that our foreign policies are to be blamed for the acts of hatred, fanaticism and terrorism that are being committed in the world by people who identify themselves as Muslims. While there are some factual basis for this perception, there are a lot more facts in the world that show that the vices in question are not just against the West, nor are the Western foreign policies the primary reasons for them.
Here is a latest example: Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists in new law to crack down on political dissidents: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html
I have mentioned several other examples in the CFI forums recently: Here are three of them: a) In 1971 there was a genocide committed by Pakistani military and their local Muslim collaborators in East Bengal (Bangladesh). Most of the murder and rape victims (of the somewhat exaggeratedly claimed 3 million and 200,000, respectively, by the government of Bangladesh) were Hindus, who were targeted indiscriminately for just being Hindus. Most of those victims were absolutely innocent people who did not even shout a slogan against Pakistan, let alone fighting for anything; they just wanted to live in their ancestral homeland of centuries peacefully with no hatred against any kind of people. b) In 2012, 50 Buddhist homes and 12 Buddhist temples were burned by Muslim mobs in Bangladesh just because one Buddhist youth’s Facebook page was tagged by someone with a picture of the Koran with a shoe on it. c) In 2013, over a 100 Christian homes were burned by Pakistani Muslim mobs just because a 14 year old girl of that community was accused of burning a page of the Koran.
While I do not have much time for this forum, on this thread I plan to add more news items, where human dignity and rights are trampled by Islamic fanaticism, as they emerge.
Readers/participants, please be advised that it is not about hating Muslims; it is about seeking human dignity and rights for all kinds of people, including those that call themselves Muslims and perpetrate and accept acts of injustice and hatred due to their religious brainwash.
The masses hate USA occupation and their imperialist wars
There is a perception, including guilty feeling, in the USA/West that our foreign policies are to be blamed for the acts of hatred, fanaticism and terrorism that are being committed in the world by people who identify themselves as Muslims. While there are some factual basis for this perception, there are a lot more facts in the world that show that the vices in question are not just against the West, nor are the Western foreign policies the primary reasons for them.
Here is a latest example: Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists in new law to crack down on political dissidents: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html
I have mentioned several other examples in the CFI forums recently: Here are three of them: a) In 1971 there was a genocide committed by Pakistani military and their local Muslim collaborators in East Bengal (Bangladesh). Most of the murder and rape victims (of the somewhat exaggeratedly claimed 3 million and 200,000, respectively, by the government of Bangladesh) were Hindus, who were targeted indiscriminately for just being Hindus. Most of those victims were absolutely innocent people who did not even shout a slogan against Pakistan, let alone fighting for anything; they just wanted to live in their ancestral homeland of centuries peacefully with no hatred against any kind of people. b) In 2012, 50 Buddhist homes and 12 Buddhist temples were burned by Muslim mobs in Bangladesh just because one Buddhist youth’s Facebook page was tagged by someone with a picture of the Koran with a shoe on it. c) In 2013, over a 100 Christian homes were burned by Pakistani Muslim mobs just because a 14 year old girl of that community was accused of burning a page of the Koran.
While I do not have much time for this forum, on this thread I plan to add more news items, where human dignity and rights are trampled by Islamic fanaticism, as they emerge.
Readers/participants, please be advised that it is not about hating Muslims; it is about seeking human dignity and rights for all kinds of people, including those that call themselves Muslims and perpetrate and accept acts of injustice and hatred due to their religious brainwash.
I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere.
There is a perception, including guilty feeling, in the USA/West that our foreign policies are to be blamed for the acts of hatred, fanaticism and terrorism that are being committed in the world by people who identify themselves as Muslims. While there are some factual basis for this perception, there are a lot more facts in the world that show that the vices in question are not just against the West, nor are the Western foreign policies the primary reasons for them.
Here is a latest example: Saudi Arabia declares all atheists are terrorists in new law to crack down on political dissidents: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html
I have mentioned several other examples in the CFI forums recently: Here are three of them: a) In 1971 there was a genocide committed by Pakistani military and their local Muslim collaborators in East Bengal (Bangladesh). Most of the murder and rape victims (of the somewhat exaggeratedly claimed 3 million and 200,000, respectively, by the government of Bangladesh) were Hindus, who were targeted indiscriminately for just being Hindus. Most of those victims were absolutely innocent people who did not even shout a slogan against Pakistan, let alone fighting for anything; they just wanted to live in their ancestral homeland of centuries peacefully with no hatred against any kind of people. b) In 2012, 50 Buddhist homes and 12 Buddhist temples were burned by Muslim mobs in Bangladesh just because one Buddhist youth’s Facebook page was tagged by someone with a picture of the Koran with a shoe on it. c) In 2013, over a 100 Christian homes were burned by Pakistani Muslim mobs just because a 14 year old girl of that community was accused of burning a page of the Koran.
While I do not have much time for this forum, on this thread I plan to add more news items, where human dignity and rights are trampled by Islamic fanaticism, as they emerge.
Readers/participants, please be advised that it is not about hating Muslims; it is about seeking human dignity and rights for all kinds of people, including those that call themselves Muslims and perpetrate and accept acts of injustice and hatred due to their religious brainwash.
I think much has been made of western foreign policy and the link to terrorism, but while foreign policy is a factor you have to view it in the context of extremist attitudes towards western ways of life and their intolerance of western liberalism. What caused the 9/11 attack on the twin towers? Was it due to western foreign policy? I don't think so because this was before the Iraq or Afghanistan invasions so there have to be other reasons. The fact that the west did nothing in Syria after the 'Arab Spring' protests and Assad's suppression of such protests precipitated the involvement of ISIS, something that was due to a lack of action by the west, not the opposite. So you cannot blame Muslim extremism solely on western foreign policy and it is often used as an excuse for atrocities who's dynamics lie elsewhere. Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right?
Isis was born from USA warmongering in the Middle East. Right?
I also believe that US warmongering in the Middle East and playing games involving Islamic fanaticism were partly responsible for the birth and survival of ISIS thus far. But ISIS is not the only Islamic criminal group in the world, nor is the USA the only victim. In this thread there are many examples where weak and nonviolent innocent people have been brutalized by the Islamic fanatics in many parts of the world. Here are two recent examples:
Pakistan sentences man to death for blasphemy on Facebook
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/11/pakistan-man-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemy-on-facebook
Islamist Mob Goes on Rampage Over Facebook Post
https://clarionproject.org/islamist-mob-goes-on-rampage-over-facebook-post/