Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime News

Fourth Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered 147

Posted by Soulskill from the rest-in-peace dept.
An anonymous reader writes: In May we discussed news that three bloggers in Bangladesh had been targeted for brutal killings in recent months over what they wrote online. Now, the local branch of Al-Qaeda is claiming responsibility for a new victim, blogger Niloy Chakrabarti. "The journalist had contributed to the humanist blogging platform Mukto-Mona. His posts often were critical of Islam. Mukto-Mona was established by another blogger—Avijit Roy, who was murdered in Bangladesh in February." His murder was as ghastly as the previous three — six men broke into his apartment with machetes. Rights groups are condemning the killings and demanding that the government put a stop to them. "There is little doubt that these especially brutal killings are designed to sow fear and to have a chilling effect on free speech. This is unacceptable."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fourth Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered More

Fourth Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered

Comments Filter:

  • Justifiable under ISLAM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trax3001BBS ( 2368736 ) on Saturday August 08, 2015 @12:49PM (#50275639) Homepage Journal

    Depending upon how one reads the first commandment " take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Ok not the first commandant but a section of the ten commandments in the Qur'an.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      NO ONE expects the Al Qaida inquisition!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If a life manual needs to be interpreted, and if interpretations range from peace to brutal killings, then I think we can all agree that the manual is very poorly written. Why doesn't this ring alarm bells in muslims' minds? Aren't they one bit open to the possibility that they got tricked into believing in a book full of made up stuff?

      • Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If a life manual needs to be interpreted, and if interpretations range from peace to burning in hell for eternity, then I think we can all agree that the manual is very poorly written. Why doesn't this ring alarm bells in Christians' minds? Aren't they one bit open to the possibility that they got tricked into believing in a book full of made up stuff?

        • Actually, I agree with this for both Islam and Christianity.

          • Actually, I agree with this for both Islam and Christianity.

            Join with me now friends, in a celebration of religion, the source of all morality, without which people will just go around murdering each other.

            wait.......what?

        • So your response to the claim that one book is full of crap is that one other book is full of crap, too. We already knew that. How is it relevant here?

    • Depending upon how one reads the first commandment " take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law"
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      Wouldn't any Christian who believes in the death penalty and even military force also agree with that?

    • Depending upon how one reads the first commandment " take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law"

      Obeying such commands requires faith: you need to be able to trust that the Power issuing them has things in hand. This is true whether the Power in question is the transcendent Creator or, say, your local legal system (or, as is becoming increasingly important, the international system). Lacking such faith/trust, you're left with the options of being the doomed moral victor or

      • Being the doomed moral victor sounds pretty good. I'll take that one. Maybe I can persuade enough people to join me.

      • Lacking such faith/trust, you're left with the options of being the doomed moral victor or seeking to be the biggest bully around.

        Religion, is so damn awesome, because it allows you to perform crimes against humaniy in the name of religion - which is somehow good - which would just be crimes against humanity if not done in the name of religion - which is bad.

        Obligitory song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Religion, ignoring its own precepts since the beginning of time.

      Just ask all those pagan Prussians and Lithuanians during the late Middle Ages who were put to the sword by those fine God-fearing Teutonic Knights how that whole "love thy brother" bit worked out.

      • The Teutonic Knights got their shiny metal Arsche well and truly kicked at Tannenberg.

        Didn't they get a sound slapping from the Utraquists as well?

        Bunch of pansies.

    • And the in books were the original - Thou shalt not murder - appears is followed with all sort of killing and allegedly god ordered murder (ie Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man). It takes a massive ability to compartmentalize to accept these works as divinely inspired.

      • Try not treating "murder" and "kill" as synonyms and things will become clearer.

        I'm not arguing from some arcane theological perspective, but from the simple fact that words have meanings, and in this case they aren't the same.

        • Since when is killing young boys not murder? How about killing females based solely upon if they have had sex yet not murder?

          • How about if they 'wanted sex with a particular bad smelling jihadist".

          • Its the same difference between any other punishment being legitimate or not - laws. If the killing is against the law, its murder. If its not against the law, its legitimate. Its the same rule of law we have today - the exact same action is either legal or not based on context and laws.

      • And the in books were the original - Thou shalt not murder - appears is followed with all sort of killing and allegedly god ordered murder (ie Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man). It takes a massive ability to compartmentalize to accept these works as divinely inspired.

        But then you can get the underage virgins and fuck them. Or your own daughters if you're Lot. Nasty-ass behavior.

        As a source of morals, the Abrahamic god is a little bit dodgy.

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday August 08, 2015 @06:35PM (#50276931)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Justifiable under ISLAM (Score:4, Informative)

        by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Sunday August 09, 2015 @02:28AM (#50278339)

        There is also the big contrast in the way the founders of most religions lived and what they taught - whether it was Abraham, Moses, Christ, Zarathustra, Buddha, Confucious et al - vs Mohammed. All of the first group were essentially philosophers/preachers who came up w/ a set of rules reining in their followers. Mohammed, by contrast, was the most extreme of everyone. He had several critics of himself murdered, including a 90+ year old man and a pregnant woman, forced his son to divorce his wife so that he could have her for himself, married a 6 year old and thighed her at 9, broke agreements after 10 years...

        All this might be merely history, except that Mohammed is held high in Islam as 'al Insan al Kamil' - the perfect man, or 'uswa hasana' - a model of conduct FOR ALL TIME, not just the 7th century AD. In fact, even what ISIS does today is less deranged than what he used to do. That's why the attempts of everybody - Democrat OR Republican - to insulate any opposition to Jihad from the charges of opposing Islam itself - is not only doomed to failure, but counter productive.

        TFA, these bloggers who get murdered are idiots for doing their work in Bangladesh itself, when that country is a major hub of Jihadists. Avijit Roy, for instance, was an Australian resident who visited Dacca and got murdered there. I don't think those idiots are much different from the journalists who went to Syria or Iraq to cover the civil wars there, and got beheaded by ISIS.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

          It's unfortunate that many people won't listen to "outsiders", necessitating a physical presence for these bloggers if their word is to carry any weight whatsoever. Their credibility is predicated on being there. Telling them to just "be somewhere else" is tantamount to saying "just shut up, you can't win".

          • You are right, but it's not worth putting one's life at stake by travelling to a jihad infested country like Bangladesh. If people don't wanna believe them b'cos they no longer live there, fine! Such doubting Thomases can take the next flight to Dacca and come back and tell their story - if they are still around.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

              If Bangladesh were your country of origin, and you had chosen to dedicate your life to improving the lot of people who live there (some of whom are near and dear to you personally), you might well feel it is worth the risk of coming to a gruesome end by staying in the country. To abandon it is to save yourself but abandon everyone left behind.

              You may not agree with their choices, but to call them "idiots" for not seeing the world as you do is horribly short-sighted. To them, the benefit (changing a few hear

              • Well, the guy in question - Avijit Roy - did immigrate to Australia, and so, in your view, 'saved himself and abandoned everybody else left behind'. Actually, that's not even accurate - the people threatened by the Jihadis there are non-Muslim minorities - Hindus & Buddhists - as well as MINOs (Muslims-in-name-only) who speak out against Jihadis. There is no threat from Jihadis to ordinary Muslims who don't care who come to power, or are happy to keep shut and live their lives in whichever way th

      • "The Koran is NOT the bible, it does not have any conflicting passages, why? Because Muhammad had the benefit of seeing how the other religions worked and came up with a frankly brilliant little fix for all the conflicts. Its really very simple...if a rule comes later that conflicts with a rule that comes earlier then the latter one supersedes the earlier one which takes care of conflicting passages."

        Except that cop-out doesn't save the Koran, philosophically. You also have the problem that we know that

  • Well, before we get all bent out of shape and waving the First Amendment around (hint: it's in Bangladesh, there is no First Amendment there), let's all remember what our President had to say about the situation.

    "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
    -- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly

    • Thanks for that out of context quote. You can read the entire speech here [whitehouse.gov], which includes the following:

      True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and that businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear, and on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.

      And passage that has you concerned...

      The future must not belong to those who slander the

      • The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

        Doesn't quite read like the call for the worldwide caliphate you imply.

        And yet, it is still an utterly unacceptable thing to say, on every level. First of all, the future must belong to those who have a right to slander any prophet they want. That is in fact the most basic tenet of human rights in this country. Second, there is no fucking comparison whatsoever between insulting a supposed prophet or "desecrating" an image of Jesus Christ, and destroying a church. Conflating those things is either horribly stupid or horribly wrong, and I don't think Obama is that stupid. I thin

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          First of all, the future must belong to those who have a right to slander any prophet they want. That is in fact the most basic tenet of human rights in this country

          Nope. Slander is an offense, not a right, even in this country.

          That's why it is a tort. The boundaries of what constitutes slander may vary, but not the concept.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by KGIII ( 973947 )

            I do not think it is an offense to slander long-dead self-proclaimed prophets. I sure as hell hope that you are not advocating changing the law to make it so that it is an offense.

            • In the US, I believe that a test for slander is that it actually harms the slandered. I don't see that anything I say is going to harm Mohammed, considering that he's been dead for over a thousand years.

              Besides, truth is a defense against slander, as well as having good evidence for what I say. There's a lot of derogatory things I can say about Mohammed within those bounds.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Let's not forget that whenever crazed Muslims butcher people, we "shouldn't get on our high horse" because during the Crusades, Christians were pretty mean too.

        Nevermind that A) the Crusades was forever ago, and B) the Christians were hitting back against aggressive Muslims even then. It's a kind of argument that wouldn't be very effective in an undergraduate sociology class, yet here's the leader of the free world spouting it.

      • Doesn't quite read like the call for the worldwide caliphate you imply.

        It's still in line with the stupid idea of religious pluralism. Mahatma Gandhi adopted this stance too, but it was his mistake. In the end he was assassinated by Hindu religious fanatic for looking for compromise with Islam faithful. Learn from mistakes of world's great thinkers! Gandhi should have opposed religions as much as he opposed British colonialism. There is inherently no compromise between religions because existence of other religions will be always a source of butthurt for a particular religion.

        • Gandhi was a dhimmi of the highest order. Appeasing Muslims was his #1 priority, just like it's both Bush & Obama's, and the reason he was assassinated was that he did everything he could to prevent Hindu backlashes against Muslims who were trying to massacre or drive Hindus completely out of Muslim areas in India, and insisting that India retain its Muzzies even if Hindus were completely expelled from Pakistan (which included Bangladesh at the time). Oh, and he advised Jews to march to the camps of t

          • What a stupid strawman argument. It's irrelevant in this context what is legal and what isn't. It's the fact that people of different religion shun or kill each other depending on how close they think their religion is close to "winning". This makes religion definitely a negative social force. I don't advocate ban of religion though because it's not needed. Just prevent shunning and killing via dialogue and diplomacy and eventually humanity will become entirely irreligious. Nobody will join a religion unles

      • And passage that has you concerned...

        The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.

        Doesn't quite read like the call for the worldwide caliphate you imply.

        Just like one can't have fries w/o the ketchup, it's impossible for some people to condemn Islam w/o a side helping of moral equivalence w/ at least one non-Islamic religion. As a very good example, Obama lectured India about religious tolerance during his visit there, and the very next day, while attending the funeral of king Abdullah, avoided mentioning it in Riyadh.

        Even though religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is non-existent, except for Sunni Muslims who accept the Hambali jurisprudence. While in

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jma05 ( 897351 )

      > hint: it's in Bangladesh, there is no First Amendment there

      Bangladesh is a secular country. It was declared an Islamic state when under military dictatorship. That was repealed later. From Wikipedia: "As part of a series of rulings following from the February Supreme Court ruling, on 4 October 2010 the High Court ruled that Bangladesh is a secular state".

      It's law is not what is at fault. It is in part because of the general lawlessness that comes from being a poor country. Culturally, Bengalis are not

      • From Wiki

        After gaining independence from Pakistan, Bangladesh became the first country in South Asia to constitutionally proclaim secularism in 1972.[162] It was followed by India in 1976.[163] However, the military junta led by Ziaur Rahman removed secularist principles enshrined in the document through a martial law ordinance in 1977.[164] In 1988, President H. M. Ershad, another de facto military ruler, promoted a parliamentary amendment that made Islam the state religion.[165] In 2010, the High Court ruled that Zia's changes under martial law were illegal and void, and upheld the secular principles of the 1972 constitution.[166] But it allowed to keep Islam as the state religion. The Constitution calls for a secular government and bans religion-based politics

        The statement in bold pretty much negates your claim that Bangladesh is secular. A secular country is a country that either has no state religion, or is officially atheist. Bangladesh is neither of the 2, as the above statement claims. And what the constitution calls for is moot when they have Jihadi parties campaigning to make Bangladesh an active center of Jihadist activity

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jma05 ( 897351 )

          Sure, the juntas tried to hide behind religion as usual when they usurped power.

          > And what the constitution calls for is moot when they have Jihadi parties campaigning to make Bangladesh an active center of Jihadist activity

          They don't have Jihadist parties AFAIK. They have Islamist parties. Naturally, they want Bangladesh to be Islamic. That is not the same as "campaigning to make Bangladesh an active center of Jihadist activity".

          Many western countries also have parties that campaign to make the respecti

          • Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by jma05 ( 897351 )

              So? During the era of crusades, for several centuries, the same could be said of Christianity. It did eventually reform. I am arguing against lumping societies that have distinct cultures, solely based on religion. They are not all the same within. Would you lump Kurds and the rest of Iraqis as culturally same today?

              Passing judgment on cultures, on any single descriptor, especially without taking into account their economic stage of development, is in my view... naive. One cannot judge societies, by the sta

    • Well, before we get all bent out of shape and waving the First Amendment around (hint: it's in Bangladesh, there is no First Amendment there), let's all remember what our President had to say about the situation.

      "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." -- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly

      Interesting that ISIS, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, the Taliban, Fuckistan and Bangladesh all agree w/ him. Although not in the way he imagines.

  • Oh man, Allahu is just *so* fuckin akbar, isn't he?

    Ignorant savages.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close