Fourth Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered 147
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."
Justifiable under ISLAM (Score:5, Insightful)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Ok not the first commandant but a section of the ten commandments in the Qur'an.
Re: (Score:1)
NO ONE expects the Al Qaida inquisition!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I agree with this for both Islam and Christianity.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Being the doomed moral victor sounds pretty good. I'll take that one. Maybe I can persuade enough people to join me.
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is killing young boys not murder? How about killing females based solely upon if they have had sex yet not murder?
Re: (Score:2)
How about if they 'wanted sex with a particular bad smelling jihadist".
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re:Justifiable under ISLAM (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Except that cop-out doesn't save the Koran, philosophically. You also have the problem that we know that
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard it's a part of Islam that it is undivided. That one has to be hard for a Muslim to believe, but it may discourage offshoots.
Re: (Score:1)
No. Most legal system have abolished the death penalty. Only retarded state still apply it like for example, the United State of American and Most Islamic country.
The point of GP is that Islam apologists will often claim that Islam is a religion of peace that value life. These are of course lies, Islam only value Muslims. Everyone else are infidels and fair game for the worst atrocity.
Re: (Score:2)
People who write like you should be flayed to death with an orbital sander.
Re: (Score:2)
as well as making sure the criminal being put to death is actually guilty
...which in the US fails (conservatively!) in about 4% of cases. [theguardian.com] Is that really worth it?
A rush to judgement (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for that out of context quote. You can read the entire speech here [whitehouse.gov], which includes the following:
And passage that has you concerned...
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And passage that has you concerned...
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
Another DeVry alumnus (Score:2)
Wrong [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Up with people! (Score:2)
Oh man, Allahu is just *so* fuckin akbar, isn't he?
Ignorant savages.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Left loves Islam (atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians) and they love blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.
Bullshit. Stop spreading your FUD and lumping "left" together as if they all thought alike. They no more think alike than those on the right do.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Generally they just try to ignore Islam. One thing missing in any Islamic country is hollyweird style liberals. I don't have any such problem though. In a choice between the buttbuddies in hollyweird and the nutcases like ISIS and Al Qaeda I have to pick the liberals. They're just disgusting while the Islamic nutjobs are an active threat. As far apart as the left and right may be in America we have far more in common with each other than with the Sharia lovers.
Re:Confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republicans who want to ban evolution from schools, kill abortus doctors and who will never allow an atheist to become the President are closer to liberals than Sharia lovers? Give me a break...
Right, because they are representative of "Republicans" enough for someone like you to say that's what that party is all about are just like people who vote Democrat, but who are espouse pure, confiscatory communism or burning down medical research facilities are representative of "Democrats" enough to say that's what that party is all about. Right? Right. Sure.
The difference is that, unlike ISIS, there aren't tens of thousands of insane anti-vaccine lefties (or righties, whatever - they both exist) rounding up school nurses and lopping their heads off for YouTube videos. There aren't squads of militant atheists burning Unitarians (or Buddhists or anyone else) alive in cages in Ohio. There aren't fiscal conservatives planting IEDs along school bus routes to kill dozens of people at a time to show how upset they are that some school districts have officials who write contracts with corrupt public employee unions. There aren't "occupy" groups with enough gumption to do much more than be persistently annoying about the fact they want to shut down businesses of which they disapprove (as opposed to shooting RPGs into the windows of those office buildings).
No, there's a huge, huge difference between they way people debate and go about resolving their differences in the US, than in places like much of the middle east. And the theocratic thugs who want to run the whole world in that model would be happy to kill you for disagreeing with them. See the difference? I think you're wrong, but I'd buy you a beer to talk about it. They'd kill you for having a beer because Allah doesn't like beer.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's the media that constantly pushes our differences and tries to incite rage and anger against one side or another. All in the name of ratings. There are a lot of things in society I don't like but I've never thought of going to pull a trigger on an abortion doctor or a gay rights advocate plugging gay marriage. That's the kind of thing that turns a society into a cluster fuck like Syria is today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point ScentCone (795499) appeared to be making. There's a few - which is too many - but it's much better than a lot.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Get a grip idiot. The vast majority of Republicans don't support killing abortion doctors and a significant portion actually support abortion. That's like saying all Democrats think one guy marrying another guy is normal. As for not allowing an atheist to become President I'm pretty sure that's already happened more than once although President Obama may be a closet Muslim I strongly suspect he's his own God. Hell, the majority of women who got an abortion last year consider themselves to be Christians
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the majority of Muslims are just like Christians in that they just want to live in peace and get along with their neighbors. Unfortunately while the Christian Bible states that if you don't believe you'll go to hell when you die it appears far too many of the radical muslims interpret their scripture to say "if they don't believe then kill them all and send them to hell." It's impossible to get along with those people but since they are Muslim then the non-crazy Muslims take their side when
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians
Nonsense. I'm atheist and dislike all religions, though I confess I have a special hatred for Islam in particular, given the disgusting behavior of a small minority of its adherents and the silence and blame-deflecting of most of its adherents.
Unfortunately, it's true that a lot of leftists cry about "Islamophobia" and that's too bad. Islam is a fascist ideology diametrically opposed to everything leftists say they hold dear, so I really can't understand how they can maintain the cognitive dissonance.
Re:Confusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Starting with fear of erosion of our freedoms. Here in Europe, it is no longer safe to criticize Islam; those who do need fear retribution from fanatics as well as legal prosecution. There's even talk of blasphemy laws, in national as well as the European parliaments.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
An interesting choice of word: "islamophobia", i.e. an irrational fear of Islam. Personally that belief leaves me with a mix of disdain and rational fear. Read the qur'an. Read what Islam's prominent and well respected scholars have to say about the right interpretation of its laws. Look at what is going on in every country where Islam is a mainstream religion.
The difference between christianity and islam in this regard is simply one of degree, not nature! The only reason Christianity isn't worse today is because of tireless efforts by those who would free you rather than enslaving you; Christianity was much worse than Islam, but it's lost most of its popularity. For some reason, Islam is still growing. I really don't have a theory as to why.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's the lack of popularity that makes the difference. I suspect it's the absence of anything like the reformation.
Had there been a Martin al-Luther or a John bin-Calvin things might have been different.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it's the absence of anything like the reformation.
The reformation is the only reason we still have christianity. Without that, they would have been hunted down like the jews.
Re: (Score:2)
By whom? Generally religions are hunted down by other religions.
Atheists, by their very nature, are unlikely to partake in holy wars. Also, they were pretty rare in 1517.
Re: (Score:2)
Until it's too late and we have no choice but to eliminate anyone who's religious, otherwise the human race will vanish from the Universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Such a movement is unlikely, using pure reason alone, to convince enough people to join to give it any chance of success; "live and let live" is an appealing argument.
It might might have an outside chance if it was branded properly - symbology, titles, legends, an us-vs-them narrative, funny clothes and maybe just a bit of hocus-pocus for good measure.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between christianity and islam in this regard is simply one of degree, not nature! The only reason Christianity isn't worse today is because of tireless efforts by those who would free you rather than enslaving you; Christianity was much worse than Islam, but it's lost most of its popularity
It's not right to think of it in terms of "Islam" and "Christianity." The proper dichotomy to recognize is between "modern thought" and "medieval thought." The Middle East is stuck in an era where it's ok to kill your political enemies, where men are above women, where the value of freedom of speech has not been recognized.
Christianity did all kinds of bad things, but now Europeans and Americans have largely recognized the value of rule of law, freedom of religion, etc. It's not about religion, it's about
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, what's Islam (or individual Muslims) going to do to me? I live in the US, and the risk of Islamist terrorism is far lower than other risks I disregard. I'm not afraid of them. I deplore what many Muslims are doing, and want them stopped, but I'm not in danger and I don't fear them.
Now, if I lived in a Muslim country, I'd feel threatened, but I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing contradictory in defending someone when they're being attacked, and opposing them when they're doing the attacking.
Re: (Score:2)
in defending someone when they're being attacked
This "islamophobia" thing attacks Islam. I didn't know that Islam qualified as "someone" instead of "something".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"When a wacko Christian does something wrong and claims his faith, Christians stand up and condemn that person. " westborough church is still running
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No such thing happens with islam. Every day atrocities are committed in name of islam. There's a billion muslims out there who could stand up and show disgust for the atrocities. Doesn't happen.
http://news.sky.com/story/1298... [sky.com]
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2... [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u... [huffingtonpost.co.uk]
http://www.yourlocalguardian.c... [yourlocalguardian.co.uk]
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/new... [dailypost.co.uk]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Like fuck it doesn't happen. Get your head out of your ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like you are lumping all muslims into the "mad nutters of ISIS" category. the majority of muslims are just like the majority of christians and jews whose religion is Abrahamic based, just fine and reasonable.
You have a different definition of reasonable than I do. There's nothing reasonable about putting yourself on a pedestal because of your beliefs. It's not surprising, either, but it's not based on reason. It's based on emotion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"There's nothing reasonable about putting yourself on a pedestal because of your beliefs. " the ones that do that are the ones that fit into the unreasonable sector as far as i'm concerned, the majority tend to keep their head down and live and let live.
No, their belief system tells them that they are better than other people, they get to go to heaven when people who don't believe what they believe are going to hell. That kind of unfounded discriminatory bullshit thinking leads to bullshit people making bullshit decisions. And remember, life in the western world is predicated upon the suffering of others. There's nothing "live and let live" about keeping your head down and living. It's live and let die.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like you are lumping all muslims into the "mad nutters of ISIS" category. the majority of muslims are just like the majority of christians and jews whose religion is Abrahamic based, just fine and reasonable. Even though anyone who believes in gods etc are deluded, they can still be reasonable human beings.
There have been polls out by Pew on Muslims in a number of countries - both in the Islamic empire and the non-Islamic world. Most Muslims endorse Islamic supremacist views, and are supportive of Jihadi campaigns. What's even more revealing - even at a personal level, they are pretty hostile to the idea of their children marrying outside Islam. Which is a major reason why 90+% of all honor killings happen among Muslims.
Also, some people do try to distinguish b/w Muslims and Islam, but it's a worth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can consult the etymology of Atheism in any good English dictionary. The fact that you think it violates "language, history, or critical thought" really reflects poorly upon yourself... but you knew that which is why you post as coward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Left loves.....blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.
Conservatives [typepad.com] love [cafehayek.com] blogging [theconservativewife.com] a [worldaffairsjournal.org] lot [theamerica...vative.com].
Bloviating is a human tradition that knows no political parties (a couple of those blogs look reasonably good, too).
Re: (Score:1)
Atheism is just one part of understanding that the supernatural is imaginary, which seems to send religious people off the deep end. It has nothing to do with your feelings of persecution.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that over here in Europe, we have *Christian Socialist* parties in a number of countries, don't you? Just thought I'd ask...
Re: (Score:2)
The Left loves Islam
Only in the sense that they think it's unfairly demonized.
(atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians)
Rather the only reason an atheist ever becomes visible is when they're resisting the influence of the pre-dominant religion of their culture.
and they love blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.
Which is somehow inferior to posting your useless opinion to troll people with different views?
They must feel confused about who to cheer for in these murderous events.
Nah, I think your opinions are the ones with a monopoly on confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to think most Christians would loathe someone like you.
Re: (Score:1)
Does anyone think that a Code of Conduct [github.com] would help avoid situations like this?
LOL! It's a centuries old "Code of Conduct" that created situations like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course this cowardly idiot calls for mass indiscriminate murder but lacks balls and has to do so anonymously. What's the difference between ISIS and those who have no apparent viable soul and would willing drop weapons of mass destruction on innocent men, women and children.
Re: (Score:1)
to "messy" and its a waste of fissionables
i do think we have enough conventional weapons to do the job
Re: (Score:1)
Are you advocating state-sponsored terrorism to fight terrorism? What, exactly, do you think that will really accomplish? I am no expert but I spent eight years enlisted and have made it a hobby to study military history. I can tell you, with some certainty, that that would not end up with the results you seem to think it will have. That will not reduce terrorism, violence, or deaths. That will almost assuredly increase those things. There is also the issue of moral high ground...
I suppose this could have b
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever it is these countries make that we need, we should end our reliance on their exports and let these misguided ideologies implode. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.
There is nothing in Bangladesh that the West is dependent on. Yeah, you do sometimes see clothing that's 'Made in Bangladesh', but that's available from all sorts of countries - Honduras, Vietnam, Costa Rica, et al. So avoid buying anything made in Bangladesh, and buy something made in one of the other countries. Bangladesh ain't China, which you can't avoid buying from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)