Slashdot Mirror
Internet Censorship's First Death Sentence?
mrogers writes "A journalism student in Afghanistan has been sentenced to death by a Sharia court for downloading and sharing a report criticizing the treatment of women in some Islamic countries. The student was accused of blasphemy and tried without representation. According to Reporters Without Borders, sixty people are currently in jail worldwide for criticizing governments online, fifty of them in China, but this may be the first time someone has been sentenced to death for using the internet. Internet censorship is on the rise worldwide, according to The OpenNet Initiative."
But not the first death sentence due to the idiocy of sharia law.
Dallas Real Estate
Thank God I`m a atheist...
FIRST DEATH!
I guess the RIAA will be moving its headquarters to Kabul.
and brought democracy huh?
How we know is more important than what we know.
What could possibly go wrong?
The Afghan Senate decided to go back on it's original decision
But the first story / headline is much more likely to bring in people from the RSS readers / aggregators etc. Not that internet censorship isn't a topic worth discussing; but the latest information is more useful than this misleading summary.
Sheesh.
If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
I think the NATO forces need to broaden the scope of their guns.
Your religion sucks. Why are you so afraid of women, of criticissm, of your own damn shadows?
Oh wait, there's fossil fuel interests there too.
There is a petition at the end of the article for those interested.
*=* America: At least it's not the Middle East *=*
Oh, wait...
that lead me to become an atheist. More and more it becomes evident that religious teachings are being used to push racism, censorship, other forms of hatred and oppressing those who have beliefs against societal norms.
I personally beleve that religion going the way of the belief that the earth is flat will be a big step forward for humanity. This way we don't have ridiculous fairytales and superstitions getting in the way of education, human rights, science and technology.
Or we'll all be in trouble.
At least the publicity will give this guy has a shot at benefiting from outside pressure like the guy who was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
This is exactly why democracy is evil and why we need to realize we have a constitutional republic, and that is what we need to spread.
Additionally, we (United States citizens) have a fantastic country where we can criticize our leaders, and vote new ones in as replacements. Its this type of story that I thank god (and I'm an atheist) that I live in the United States!
Didn't you people "liberate" that country a few years ago?
In case you've forgotten, we invaded this country first, because they were supposedly harboring Osama bin Laden. Remember him? He had something to do with 9/11, if my memory serves me. He was the guy who HATED Saddam Hussein and actually OFFERED HIS SOLDIERS TO HELP SAUDI ARABIA FIGHT IRAQ. The royal family of Saudi Arabia laughed at him, preferring instead to rely on American troops. He got pissed, and has been an anti-American nutjob ever since.
...sorry, but I don't think I can keep up the Colbert-esque routine any longer:
Oh, but I'm sorry... I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new. After all, everyone in America knows that Osama hated Saddam and that the latter had nothing to do with 9/11! Everyone knows that al-Qaeda was originally led by Osama to be an anti-Iraq and anti-Saddam milita!
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=544 quote: [in 2005] 64 percent believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda (up slightly from 62% in November).
How is it FUCKING possible that this has happened? Osama is the one responsible for 9/11, and yet trillions spent on Iraq, a country that Osama was actively trying to fight. But, you know, despite the fact that Iraq has been an unending clusterfuck, I at least assumed that things in Afghanistan--the only that actually openly supported Osama--were going semi-decently. Ok yeah, so opium production has been on the rise since we invaded--shit happens, shit happens, plus I'm not exactly a huge fan of the war on drugs anyway so it's no biggie.
But this... What the FUCK. We destroy the Taliban, and then install THIS sharia-based bullshit? Or, at the very least, we allowed this government to take power after the Taliban fell? We're busy JAMMING democracy and freedom down the throat of Iraq, but we're allowing Afghanistan to descend into the dark ages again? We're allowing them to become a breeding ground for the successor to Osama bin Laden?
I don't know what to say. Sounds like the beginning of a Lewis Black routine, but for the life of me I think of a punch line.
I don't understand. Being mindlessly pro-war is one thing. Being mindlessly pro-war vs. a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, while allowing the country that harbored and nurtured the mastermind behind 9/11 to DESCEND INTO A FUCKING TOTALITARIANISM AGAIN is just... just...
What is WRONG with you people--you jingoists, you untiring flag-wavers, you twin-tower-tattooing rednecks, you support-the-war-or-you-aren't-a-patriot fucks? Why aren't you screaming at our president for allowing Osama to get away with it? Why aren't you screaming at him to bring 'freedom' to Afghanistan, a country we originally invaded six and a half years ago, a country that was and apparently still is much more oppressive and totalitarian than Iraq ever was?
I don't understand.
The fact that they made this "original" decision at all shows what kind of government we've installed/allowed to rise to power in Afghanistan.
Wow, it's sure nice to see how far they've come since the days of the Taliban. I guess all those people have not died in vain.
The solution is... the elimination of Islam as the paramount force in these peoples lives.
Unfortunately these adherents of Islam are practicing pure Islam. It's high time Islam had a reformation. Muslims living in the west really should be leading the charge... but they are inconspicuously QUIET.
I saw a magazine cover, The World Without Islam, and I thought... about damn freaking time. Then reading hte aritcles it was a bunch of apologist crap for the Religion of Pieces.
"How is it FUCKING possible that this has happened?"
The CIA and the Total Information Awareness agency.
From the next acticle:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/lifeline-for-pervez-afghan-senate-withdraws-demand-for-death-sentence-777188.html
Lifeline for Pervez: Afghan Senate withdraws demand for death sentence
By Kim Sengupta, Jerome Starkey in Kabul and Nigel Morris
Saturday, 2 February 2008
The move follows widespread international protests and appeals to the President, Hamid Karzai, after the case was highlighted by The Independent and more than 38,000 readers signed our petition to secure justice for Mr Kambaksh. In Britain, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband, the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and the shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, backed the campaign, and there have been demonstrations in the Afghan capital, Kabul.
The first ruling by the Senate supporting the death sentence on Mr Kambaksh by a religious court in Mazar-i-Sharif in the north of the country, was proposed by Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, a key ally of President Karzai, and was seen as a severe blow to the 23-year-old journalism student's chances of avoiding execution. The new stance, in which the Senate calls its previous decision "a technical mistake", significantly raises hopes that he will eventually be freed.
Mr Kambaksh's family and friends had complained that he was not allowed legal representation at his trial, which was held in secret. Fundamentalist Muslim clerics say he should not have access to the normal right of appeal under the state because he was convicted of the religious crime of blasphemy. The Senate statement yesterday explicitly recognised that the student should have the right to a defence lawyer as well as the right to appeal.
The Senate statement, read out by Aminuddin Muzafari, secretary to the upper house, said: "The position of the upper house regarding distributing anti-Islamic articles, via an Iranian website, was that the upper house approved of the prosecution of such acts by the judiciary. The nature of the sentence, considering the judiciary's independence, would be up to the court itself.
"The upper house respects the rights of the accused, such as the right to have a defence lawyer, the right of appeal and other legal rights. But approval of the death sentence, in the statement published recently from the address of the upper house, was a technical mistake."
Mr Mojaddedi, who has been heavily criticised for proposing the ruling backing the execution, said: "I accept that justice is independent and only the courts are competent to issue such a ruling."
Mr Kambaksh can now petition the court of appeal against both his conviction and sentence, and, afterwards, the supreme court. If he fails there, he can appeal directly to Mr Karzai who has been inundated with emails about the case for a pardon. Mr Kambaksh's brother, Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi, welcomed the new position adopted by the Senate. He added, however, that he might have difficulties finding lawyers to present the case at the appeal court after warnings from fundamentalist groups against people "allying themselves with the apostate". He said the only realistic chance of his brother being freed might be the personal intervention of Mr Karzai.
Ershad Ahmadi, a senior aide to Mr Karzai, said the President was "keeping a close eye on the case". But he stressed it was a "long, difficult and complicated legal process".
Mr Ahmadi added: "The decision by the initial court will be reviewed by a higher court and that decision will then be scrutinised by the supreme court. If they uphold the death sentence, the President can send the verdict back to the supreme court for them to reconsider. But if they stand by their decision the President still has the authority to pardon him."
Selim Mohammed Nasruddin, an analyst of the Afghan legal system, said the upper house had "taken a really dangerous step in saying this journalist
No, let's say thank "god" no one was ever killed on behalf of religious skepticism, or agnosticism, or whatever you call it.
Any kind of blind belief, where faith never bends to reason, is evil, no matter if it's faith in Islam or Jesus Christ.
Robert Heinlein said it best, in "If This Goes On -":
"Yet you are willing to assert your own religious convictions and to use them as a touchstone to judge my conduct. So I repeat: who told you? What hill were you standing on when the lightning came down from heaven and illuminated you? Which archangel carried the message?"
"I believe that a man has an obligation to be merciful to the weak
"I believe very strongly in freedom of religion - but I think that that freedom is best expressed as freedom to keep quiet. From my point of view, a great deal of openly expressed piety is insufferable conceit."
p0st t1t5 or gtf0
Coming to a country near you...unless the wimps of the would start squishing these morons like the pigs they are. As a matter of fact, take a page from General Pershing and do what he did. Line up about 50 of them. Dip bullets in pig blood. Execute all but one. Take the bodies, toss then into a common grave, pour pig blood & pig body parts on them, cover them up (while the one you let live watches). Let the only survivor go......they did that in the late 1919's era.......NOT ONE more act of terrorism for a long time.
Behead those that insult Islam
This is future of Europe.
Demographics are destiny. Europe refuses to have children and import more and more Islamic Immigrants who they refuse in integrate into their society.
Do you think they will tax themselves to pay for your retirement and entitlements?
The future of Europe is a brown hand pulling white life support plug out of the wall.
The Danish protests
The French annual car burning riots.
The Hate Speech laws that prevent debate on the issue.
Mass immigration out of the the UK to Canada & Australia.
In my lifetime I will see cross-amputations in Trafalgar Square.
The children of Britain will be slaves.
Er...why don't you read your own article (obviously, you were too busy to read the /. summary to note which governmental body is involved)? FYI, in the Afghan system, there is a difference between a sharia court and the Senate. The Senate voted to support the sentence, and in the article you link to, then reversed its support. The guy still has a death sentence awaiting him until a higher court reverses it.
And the response? An 'offtopic' mod, natch. Because it's completely offtopic to talk about the fact that we installed this government (and/or allowed it to seize power) and our reasons for doing so.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From what I read here and there (google) this is really about this guy's older brother who's also a journalist and who has written about one or more of the tribal chiefs aka warlords (and since they're our "friends" now they have moved up into all sorts of higher positions). One thing that stung was apparently his reporting how this tribal chief and others (apparently it's an old custom) enjoy capturing and abusing teenage boys. Maybe before being sold and shipped to Guantanamo, who knows.
I think, but am not sure that's in the Uruzgan province where our dear Dutch soldiers are protecting such scumbags while spreading freedom and democracy.
And there are persistent rumors that Karzai (mayor of Kabul)'s brother is opium chief number one in that lovely place. Well I reckon something has to pay for weaponry and the squanders of war and newfound power. And they can cheerfully dump the heroin into countries such as Iran. You know, to stop the terrorists there.
BTW, in Iraq they now HAVE sharia law. Officially. It's only a few pages away from the oil privatizing clauses in their new and illegal constitution brought to them by the benevolent US of A. Gays are killed. Single women (and there are MANY widows there) are targeted. The whole shebang. So they get death from above, death from starvation, death from disease, and death from their own governments militia (and the madhi). Almost makes death by M16 a mercy killing, doesn't it.
Really? Literally?
Are you literally as dumb as a box of rocks? Or is the word I am looking for "figuratively"?
There is something that bothers me here.
We read a story about a religious court issuing a secret death sentence to a journalist for reading and distributing ideas about women's rights... yet the majority of the posts regarding this issue are critical of the United States?
Doesn't this seem a bit twisted to you? I'm not defending the US actions in Iraq, or Afghanistan, I am only saying that perhaps that is not the subject of this debate.
I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that when we assign blame, as a community, in the potential murder of this young man, we should blame the murderers... otherwise this looks largely like the criticism of Israel:
- You should not bomb their militants... it kills the militants and sometimes civilians.
- But they try to kill our civilians every day!
- Yes, but you are better armed and richer, so why don't you defend yourselves?
Or here's another good one:
Two social workers are walking at night in a dangerous part of town. They hear moans from the alley, and they come upon a man who has been severely beaten, robbed, and stabbed repeatedly. One of them social worker looks at the man who's mouthing "help" and says to the other: "Wow, the people who did this to him must be oppressed and need our help".
Sounds like a political move by a bunch of embittered loser Taliban cleric types.
I hope for the young man's sake the glowering zealots get overruled.
It's kind of incumbent on the US gov. to get their puppet to overrule these
desperate, medieval, mysogynistic bearded dudes (I say that as a bearded dude myself.)
Organized religion served its purpose:
- It corrected peoples' wilder selfish or atavistic impulses, and aligned aspirations,
to promote efficient co-operation in groups.
-This enforced internal alignment and co-operation led to great power and persistence
for the organized religion memes. Still going strong on internal momentum.
- But now we have more subtle and less restrictive ways of enforcing necessary
amounts of co-operation with society, through the rule of civil law and
democratic (or partly democratic) governance.
The sooner that organized religion can be seen by all, worldwide, for what it is:
- an outmoded, often unjust, and certainly undemocratic form of groupiness -
the better off we'll be.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No it was probably modded offtopic because, among many other reasons, this probably would have happened regardless of whether or not we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.
If anything, the increased media presence in Afghanistan brought about by our invasion is probably the only reason we even know about this case.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Someone just modded offtopic again. Seriously, are things so fucking bad that people cannot remember:
1. That we invaded Afghanistan back in '01
and
2. Our reasons for invading Afghanistan
?
Mentioning Iraq is also on-topic, because we have been using resources on Iraq that could have instead been used on Afghanistan to prevent another fucking totalitarian theocracy from coming to power.
"literally"
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
No it was probably modded offtopic because, among many other reasons, this probably would have happened regardless of whether or not we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq.
Bullshit. We installed our own interim government in Iraq, kept it running for at least a year and only allowed elections to take place when we were nice and sure that reasonably progressive, pro-western powers were in place and ready to take over.
If we really wanted to--if we'd made even a QUARTER of the effort we have in Iraq--we could've ensured Afghanistan did not slide back into fundamentalist totalitarian theocracy.
As it is, we've just created another monster. In another couple decades, perhaps they'll sponsor more terrorists and we'll have to invade them again... weeee...
We didn't select their leaders. They selected their own leaders. The US cannot be blamed because the citizens didn't choose wisely nor know how their elected representatives would act.
That didn't stop us from setting policies in Iraq unilaterally, like banning anyone who was ever a member of the Baath party from holding any position in the new government. We installed the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ruled for over a year in Iraq. After that, a non-elected interim government ruled for (about) another year. I don't know offhand how that compares to our efforts in Afghanistan, but my point is this: we didn't relinquish control of Iraq until we were sure that relatively secular, pro-western leaders were going to take over.
And we damn sure should have done the same thing in Afghanistan, especially if we cared about the potential for them to become future terrorist producers/trainers/harborers.
...helping pay for this country were at least partially directed into wiping out all traces of religion there, it might be worth it.
There is no god. Stop deluding yourselves, you morons.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
To put it another way, I'm not arguing about morality. A lot of people think that anti-war sentiment is always a moral issue, but it's not. I'm simply saying that, if we weren't ready to stick around, make the extra effort, and install in a western-style democracy like we were in Iraq, it was a wasted effort. Wasted money, wasted soldiers' lives. The fact that we will willing to go the extra mile in Iraq (and cripple our economy in the process) and not Afghanistan is simply stagging, when you consider how Afghanistan had a very direct involvement and Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.
The government of Afghanistan should ban sharia courts. Just for the one reason that they are based on Islamic religion laws that where written in the time when they didn't even know that the earth rotates around the sun. The other major issue with sharia courts is the fact that the judge can do whatever he wants, there is no guarantee on fair trial, it actually is less then zero that you get a fair trial in sharia courts. You face the risk of just hearing one side in front of the court, or no side at all. In sharia court you might not even get an defendant at all.
I've been looking into the laws of Islam and the sharia court system, all of them are middle age style of law. Where they rule by violence and with the treat of death. If Afghanistan wants to join the modern world, it should banish sharia courts. So should all other Islam countries in the world.
So why not clue me in? Why not confront the FACTS contained in my post and give me your interpretation of them?
Hi,
All the other posters replying to your post seem to be of the opinion that the point of the analogy you drew was that armed lambs will be able to defend themselves against attack by the wolves. A naive interpretation, such as mine, of this analogy would instead be that in a constitutional republic, the constitution acts as the guns of the lamb - both figuratively and, through its agent the Executive, literally - to protect it from assault by the wolves, despite them being in the majority. This could be representative of, for instance, the arguments for and against slavery in the mid-1800s (i.e. should slavery be allowed to exist, because the majority wish it so? Or should the US Constitution's assumption that "all men are created equal" act to protect those who would be enslaved against their wolfish enslavers? Thankfully, wisdom prevailed, and emancipation proclaimed). Is the intended point really the first one? And if so, are my co-posters aware that Afghanistan is in a bit of a mess at the moment because too many people have guns?
Sorry for my odd english; it's 6am here right now and I desperately need some sleep.
Yours sincerely, etc.
"...we could've ensured Afghanistan did not slide back into fundamentalist totalitarian theocracy."
In other words, exactly the way it was before the invasion. Unless you'd argue that such abuses of human rights did not take place under the Taliban, I believe my point still stands. The only difference now is that the media gives a shit about Afghanistan.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
...in the real world. We installed Iraq's current government. We dictated who could and could not participate in the new government, including banning certain people from participating (including everyone who held any position in the old government or Saddam's party.) If we wanted to, we damn sure could have made sure that Afghanistan's new constitution didn't include sharia. (Constitutions aren't usually "elected", FYI.)
I'm not saying that I approve of "nation-building bullshit", as you call it. I'm just saying, if we're already engaged in it, we should have done it RIGHT. We went the extra mile in Iraq to ensure it wouldn't revert to its previous self (though it may implode in a civil war anyway, at least its CURRENT government is democratic and secular.) We apparently did NOT go the extra mile in Afghanistan.
Well I can somewhat understand your confusion, but on the other hand... just consider this: You are maybe thinking that after the last bombardment/war in Afghanistan ended, life returned to "normal" there. The following information is from a German radio report a couple of months ago, that reported on the conditions that the Afghan jurisprudence has to work under. The central problems are: lack of infrastructure. They have NO central database or information infrastructure for recent laws and judgements that they could refer to. They have no computers. No internet. They don't even have - in most places - typewriters or paper to start. The judges and attorneys are not driving around in armoured cars, protected by bodyguards - forget it: they are taking the bus. The same bus that the accused may use. This is what I would call chaos - this is everyday life there.
So why don't we focus on building infrastructure over there, instead of pouring hundreds of billions into rebuilding Iraq? Look at the amount of resources committed to Iraq vs. Afghanistan... it doesn't even remotely compare.
You don't seem to understand at all. I am not saying "Afghanistan is a worse place because of our efforts." I am saying exactly what you're saying--"Little [or nothing] has changed." Given the billions of dollars spent on Afghanistan, and all of the US soldiers GAVE THEIR LIVES fighting in Afghanstian, and the fact that fighting terrorism still seems to be on everyone's top 5 priority list, I'd say this is a very bad thing.
Please, explain to me how it's not a very bad thing.
Watch the news that the majority of the people think is news and you will understand. Here is a hint: It starts whith an F and it rimes with Fox News.
It happend because the media is not interested in truth or journalism. They are companies and sell their souls for a few extra viewers, so they can satisfy their customers, the advertisers.
That was the reason they played along with the bullshit and still do. And people still think jouralists are objective people. Most of them are not and the ones who are, are either unimportant or edited.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Anyone got any idea where I can logon to give these ass-backward moron leaders a good flaming and get them hopping mad?
I'd like to remind these simpletons,I'm more dangerous to them than they are to me and the world isn't gonna buy any imagined superiority their mothers convinced them they have.
Just cranky,I guess...
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
So what exactly do you propose we do? We could pull out, and leave what's there now. It's still democracy, but it's democracy in a country that wants theocracy, and so they'll vote their way to that end one step at a time. We could pull out, and attack again right away... or we could just roll our tanks back to the government buildings, kill the leaders we just installed, and told the public "vote again, and this time don't screw up."
No, I'm afraid the only think that could possibly help is massive education efforts, and I don't think the country would be open to the kind of education needed. Hopefully over time just access to information will eventually bring a generation that *wants* to get rid of stupid religious laws like these. But forcing it... that won't help.
And it's still (if marginally) better then the taliban.
This isn't about voting. Their constitution recognizes sharia law. People don't usually vote on constitutions. We could write them a constitution if we wanted, and let them elect their own leaders under its restrictions.
And yes, I am saying that if we're going to invade a country we should not leave until we can leave behind a secular, pro-western government. If that means manhandling the politicians, so be it. I'm NOT a fan of the idea, but it's certainly better than killing a lot of people and simply leaving, just hoping they'll forgive us and build a government in our own image of their own accord.
I'm not saying we should leave them to their own devices, but I believe you can't just transplant institutions like democracy, nor infrastructure, without the underlying support. You can't have democracy without civil society. You can't have a parliamentary democracy if people think and vote along the lines of family ties, and real influence is wielded by warlords and chiefs instead of the government. You can't build roads and infrastructure if there aren't the means to support them - income from taxes, equipment and engineers to do it. You can read of failed 3rd world aid projects from roads to mining, fishing to power plants, wheat to forestry. They all fail because they are "dropped from the sky" into a social, economic and physical environment that can't support them. Small grass roots level injections of technology, education and health care are more effective, and can leverage big change much better than grand projects. I really believe any change has - at least be seen - to come from the local people. Change for better has much more of a chance in Iraq, as it has a comparatively good sense of nationhood. Afghanistan as a nation or an identity barely even exists, so building a working state there is fairly utopian. As for Islam, I think of it in the Middle East in the same terms as Communism in post-WWII Africa. Its appeal is based much on the fact that it provides an counterculture to the despised Western influence. As such, the more you try to fight it the stronger it becomes.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
Amen to that. I would mod you up if you weren't already +5.
What is WRONG with you people--you jingoists, you untiring flag-wavers, you twin-tower-tattooing rednecks, you support-the-war-or-you-aren't-a-patriot fucks?
There's a certain segment of the population that just likes things to be simple. They don't understand the world, and they don't want to. They rely on the President or Bill O'Reilly, or hell, even Susan Sarandon to tell them what's right. If the leadership tells them something simple like "we gotta get them terrorists" they'll defend that forever. Questioning that would be going down the path of trying to understand something they don't want to.
Everyone does that to SOME degree with some topic. If my mechanic started talking about how bad Chevy transmissions are compared to Ford transmissions, and how Chevy was a rotten company for making bad transmissions, my eyes would glaze over, especially if I heard all the time how great Chevy transmissions are from my friends, family, etc. Obviously I think international politics are more important than transmissions... but my point is there's a certain amount of willful disengagement with the populace.
Your message is right, but your approach is wrong. You sound like Ron Paul (in the sanest thing he's ever said) talking about Iraq at the Republican debate the other night. People, at least in the US, don't like to listen to ranting and raving people. It doesn't matter what they're saying, it's just an automatic "this guy sounds crazy, whatever he's saying is crazy".
AccountKiller
He was condemned for content and not method (internet) It's also good to note that this is the gov that is being supported by the UN/USA
There was an unknown error in the submission.
I will, however, point out that before the war everyone was bitching that the US intended to install a "puppet government" in order to secure their interests in the area. Now that the freely elected government is on the verge of violating basic human rights codes, you're bitching that the US allowed such a government to come about. It's pretty much a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
And, lastly, you're getting your panties tangled over nothing. A similar case came up before, and resolved itself in a civilized manner. If they actually end up executing this guy, then you might have a reason to bitch. Until then, you're just noise on the line.
Sometimes you simply have to rant. Discovering that Afghanistan is a theocratic totalitarianism again is--for me--one of those times. Anyone who can calmly discuss this shit *calmly* as our economy circles the drain and the evening news continue to spew lies (six and a half years later) is a goddamn green-blooded Vulcan.
...how religious belief is a positive force in society?
-deane
such as the bit about Al Qaeda being an anti-sadam militia
I didn't say that. I said Osama led and presented them as such to the royal family of Saudi Arabia. A quick Wikipedia check confirms this. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
It's pretty much a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Stop pretending every single anti-war advocate has the same opinions. If we installed a puppet government, I wouldn't be super happy about it but I would recognize it as the lesser of two evils. Also, note that there are plenty of ways to manipulate a forming government without outright dictating it. For example, we could have simply insisted that the new constitution not recognize sharia at all (kinda like how we insisted that members of Saddam's political party be banned from participating in the new government.)
If they actually end up executing this guy, then you might have a reason to bitch.
What the hell? I'm not allowed to bitch about a law up until SOMEONE IS PUT TO DEATH UNDER THAT LAW?? Think about what you just said there for a moment.
Anyway, I'm more pissed off about sharia being constitutionally supported. Like the rest of the country, I haven't been keeping up Afghanistan (the fact that the evening news never talks about it certainly doesn't help). If they sentenced someone to death for something as asinine as this (the overturned-sentence-on-a-technicality notwithstanding), you can be sure they've committed all kinds of other perverse atrocities already.
Also... are you SURE you're not an American?
From Wikipedia. Note that the [numbers] are citations:
By 1988, bin Laden had split from Maktab al-Khidamat; while Azzam acted as support for Afghan fighters, Laden wanted a more military role. One of the main leading points to the split and the creation of al-Qaeda was the insistence of Azzam that Arab fighters be integrated among the Afghan fighting groups instead of forming their separate fighting force.[46] Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia in 1990 as a hero of jihad, who along with his Arab legion, "had brought down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union.[47] However, during this time Iraq invaded Kuwait and Laden met the Sultan, and told him not to depend on non-Muslim troops and offered to help defend Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was rebuffed and publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on US military.
Osama was the leader of al-Qaeda, and he presented them to the Sultan in order to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraqi aggression. al-Qaeda was formed as a replacement for western armies, it's true, but it was NOT formed to fight western powers, and the idea that it was loyal or friendly with Saddam is laughable.
You're basing your belief system now on two faulty assumptions:
First, you assume that belief in a deity depends on organized religion. It doesn't.
Second, you assume that religious teachings are particularly problematic in pushing racism, censorship, and other forms of hatred. Atheists have been guilty of just as many atrocities. The only difference is, they can skip the step of perverting some holy book to prove their point.
I'm Agnostic, but I am under no illusions that this belief has any correlation with hatred and stupidity. It's possible to make a peaceful religion, and it's possible to make a hateful Atheist dogma.
Here's an idea: Instead of looking for someone to blame for the problem, why don't you do something about it?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Yes! No more MAFIAA, just ShaRIAA!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
You are speaking in the past tense of something that may or not happen in the future.
Technically, it's already happened. They've been self-governing for years now; we're just providing security. Now, I'm not saying that the potential for revolution isn't high, nor am I saying it was a good idea to invade in the first place, but at least made an EFFORT at bringing them the 'freedom' Bush is always yammering on about.
Al Qaeda was formed as an extremist religious militia from the get-go. They weren't created to fight Sadam, they were created to amass power for Osama, and force the world to kneel at the feet of Islam. That they chose to take the side of Saudi Arabia against Iraq is utterly irrelevant. You bring it up as if it should be some horrifying revelation. I respond with a shrug of the shoulders, and the phrase "so what?". If that was supposed to be a refutation of my point, it failed miserably. All you're telling me is that no matter what the US does there will be some "anti-war" group that's pissed off about it. In other words, "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Fine, let me modify my statement: bitch all you want, just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Most people looking at the situation understand that it is most likely a ploy to put pressure on that poor bastards brother. Nobody actually expects the execution to occur. But even if it does, so what? It's unfortunate, yes, and we should do what we can to try and show them why their actions are wrong, but in the end, it's THEIR society, and we can only do so much. Only an utter idiot would expect Afghanistan to go from a medival Theocratic dictatorship to a modern pluralist democracy overnight. Or over 6 years for that matter. We don't even expect IRAQ to become an overnight success story, and Iraq was WAY ahead of Afghanistan. Change takes time, that's a fact of life. Your hysterics aren't going to make things get better any faster. Once again, that much is obvious. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before beaking off?
Yep. Are you SURE that you ARE an American?
Oh, and I just LOVE your tag-line. Terrorists protect people from the government, huh? Yep, Osama Bin Laden and Timmothy McVeigh did an awesome job of protecting people. Although the latter only "protected" 168 people, while the former "protected" almost 3,000!
You're one of those idiots who think that putting a "This is a Gun Free Home" sticker in their front window is a good idea, aren't you? A real bumper-sticker-thinker!
Could it be that the real difference between the behaviour of people represented by these two religions stems not from the teachings of the two religions, but by the fact that the average income of Muslims around the world is $3,700, while the average income in the west is $27,000.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Perhaps some liberated politicians in the enlightened west can intervene. Trying to mobilize and do something for this person is at any rate better than hanging out at Slashdot and trying to fell clever witticisms about the situation.
If you were religious before reading things like this, this is a bad reason to stop being religious. It isn't your deity of choice's fault that there are idiots out there that would invoke religion to cause harm. You're right that religious teachings have been and are being used to drive people to murder and hatred, but that doesn't mean that religion itself is inherently bad: If it brought you comfort before, it still can. It isn't going to drive you to start stoning people to death, and it's a tragedy that even one person would deny their faith because of the actions of other, infinitely fallible human beings.
Religion needs people like you. In an increasingly secular world (not that there's anything wrong with that), religion is increasingly becoming the domain of the kooks and the maniacs, at least at the higher levels. Because almost nobody still listens to their priest, or their rabbi, or their imam, or whoever, people only pay attention when the kooks shout the loudest and tell their followers to kill everyone else. This drives all the sensible people away as people become ashamed to admit they believe in a higher power in case it implies they're a kook that wants to kill everyone. The sensible people are scared away and the idiots flood in.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
sixty people are currently in jail worldwide for criticizing governments online
Sixty people? That is about one millionth of a percent of the world's population. Not too bad, if you ask me.
Still, you would probably get a different opinion if you asked one of the sixty in jail.
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
Your dictionary and my dictionary must differ on the definition of "literally" ...
I am a muslim (barely posting .. due to the cut cables)
.. reading the above comments- that many of you don't know) and strives for, which if every human can embrace -even if they do not believe in the religion itself, this is not the issue- the world can become a better place.
.. called as if originating from the depths of that same religion I am committed to!
... forever!!
I have read the Quraan many times, I know every part of Sunnah.
I know the goals of what is called "Shariaa law", be it far or near.
I have lived and identified with the moral values that this religion calls for (which I presume
But I have never ever witnessed such hatred, ignorance, cruelty, absurdity, hypocrisy in my life
I call all people
to pray with me (even atheists will agree with me, this time)..
that these people may burn in hell
Amen
Quran [16:116] But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.
Quran [4:50] "Behold! how they invent a lie against Allah. but that by itself is a manifest sin!"
Quran [3:94] "If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to Allah, they are indeed unjust wrong-doers."
Quran [9:107] "They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars."
Quran [10:69] Say: "Those who invent a lie against Allah will never prosper."
Quran [58:16] "They have made their oaths a screen (for their misdeeds): thus they obstruct (men) from the Path of Allah. therefore shall they have a humiliating Penalty."
How is it harmful to compare two things? When you do that, you see differences and similarities. It's like the Mohs scale - you can't tell how hard one stone is unless you compare it to another. Here's the table.
As for what you see when you compare - well, that's another matter entirely.
Are we different? Surely. I can say "I dislike GW Bush and all his policies" and be reasonably sure I won't be killed for it.
Are we similar? That too. This country has a religion that a majority of people are a member of. And they use that religion to make decisions and laws for the rest of us. Like abortion. It's a "sin", so they tell me. So it's illegal.
The trick is, once you compare and see where you're similar - you do your best to fix those parts and NOT be like the countries under Sharia law.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Al Qaeda was formed as an extremist religious militia from the get-go. They weren't created to fight Sadam, they were created to amass power for Osama, and force the world to kneel at the feet of Islam.
Try again. They were created to fight Soviet Russia. We provided them--along with a bunch of other anti-Soviet forces--with weapons. The US army has recovered these weapons from the dead bodies of al-Qaeda fighters. Osama didn't declare war on America and the rest of the world until after the King of Saudi Arabia laughed in his face.
If it makes you sleep better at night believing that evil humans are born evil, all evil humans are friends with each other and no one ever changes loyalties, go right ahead. You'll forgive me, though, if the first thing I aim for when the revolution comes is your head (and everyone like you.)
Oh yes, I own several guns. And I am vehemently anti-gun control. Anti-welfare, anti-abortion (gasp!) and pro-small government, too.
Re: my sig, the people at the Boston Tea party were "terrorists". Every soldier in the Revolution was a "terrorist" fighting his lawful ruler. The leaders of my government were being "terrorists" when they firebombed Dresden and Tokyo, and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Every anti-Saddam Iraqi fighter was a 'terrorist'.
And this isn't an apology for assholes like Osama! Far from it; it's a cry for sanity and perspective. When dumbasses like yourself assume that all the evil people in the world are working in unison, we wind up with situations like the current one--a neverending war that's destroying our economy, against a (now-deposed) regime that was ENEMIES with al-Qaeda, while his birth country (Saudi Arabia) AND THE BIRTH COUNTRY OF 90% OF THE HIGHJACKERS gets rich selling us oil and the country that supported him (Afghanistan) continues its fundamentalist, theocratic ways.
The 'terrorist' label is a misdirection of epic proportions. We are assuming the wrong motives; we are fighting the wrong wars. The world is a complex place. A cry for perspective and perception is not the same as pacifism. There ARE wars we should be fighting, and I've never claimed otherwise.
But go ahead--go back to painting me as a mindless liberal. Go back to pretending that every military decision the USA government has ever made is unquestionably correct.
What the fuck nationality are you, anyway? Not enough subtlety or language skills to be a Brit. Aussie, perhaps? Expat former American?
At the end of the news story there is a link to a petition, add your name.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sentenced-to-death-afghan-who-dared-to-read-about-womens-rights-775972.html
It's probably saving lots of lives to have the internet cut off since it's slowing down the number of people viewing objectionable material about freedom and rights.
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
In the US, you are sentenced to years of anal rape, resulting in AIDS, and then death.
Much more civilized here since we don't directly execute anyone.
Oh, and the more you protect yourself from anal rape, the more violent you must be in your defense, creating years more of anal rape.
First you tell me that you haven't studied up on Afghanistan, and then you try to give me a history lesson? You've got some gall!
Throwing tea in a harbour is terrorism in your book? Are you out of your fucking mind?
At worst they were thieves who destroyed a lot of private property. At best, they were practising civil disobedience. Either way, their actions in no way constituted terrorism. And the fighters who fought against the brits? They fought against the British ARMY. They didn't kill civilians. They didn't behead reporters. They certainly didn't institute draconian religious rule, or send suicide bombers into marketplaces. Hell, they even wore uniforms! Comparing the war for US independence to terrorists is like saying US Marines are the same as Nazi Stormtroopers. It's fucking ridiculous, although the outright absurdity of such comparisons never seems to stop people from making them. Usually I write such people off as a lost cause, but you're pushing all the right buttons today.
I don't give a damn what your political affiliations are. There are stubborn fools in every political party who seem to think that personal indignation is a good replacement for information and intelligence. Not that it's any of your business, but I'm an expat from the Balkans. Moved to the west in 1990. I'm separated from you by the 49th parallel. I've considered moving south a few times, but so far I've had too much loyalty to the nation which gave me a second chance.
I heard an interview with his older brother on NPR the past Thursday. Apparently, he was arrested and sentenced more because of what his older brother did (published a book or something, I don't remember) than what he himself did (ran some blog I think). His brother said that the sentence has to be approved by someone higher up than the courts (president?) and that it has nearly no chance of actually being carried out. Someone with more interest should go to NPRs website and look this up then make a more insightful post so they can get modded 5 while I remain in the shadows with my lowly 1 or 0. I just don't feel like looking this stuff up.
Muhammad's army of madmen rode out of the deserts of Arabia. They
raped/conquered and enslaved the minds of all the people in the area and
to
this day more than 1.2 billion people have been infected with the mental
disease we know as Islam.
I urge my fellow Americans to boycott all Muslim businesses and write your
congressmen to stop the billions of dollars in foreign aid to Muslim
countries, stop all future Muslim immigration, and BAN ISLAM. Now before
you
start ignorantly screaming "freedom of religion", Islam is
unconstitutional,
and let me explain why. Islam is a supremacist political party disguised
as
a religion, which discriminates against non-Muslims, women and
homosexuals.
The main goal of this totalitarian system is worldwide domination under
Islamic law; and Islamic law is a real fun time: Muslim countries are
constantly hanging women for adultery or "honor" and executing homosexuals
just for being gay, and murdering Jews just for being Jewish. Women can't
vote or equally testify in court and millions of Middle-Eastern Muslim
women
get their clitoris cut off by the age of 14. Islam is clearly
unconstitutional, and if we can't ban it, then we need to change our
constitution. The constitution should not be a suicide pact. Don't buy
that
bullshit that liberals try to sell, saying that Islam is in any way
peaceful. People who blow themselves up and mutilate their daughters
vaginas
are obviously suffering from a mental disease. Islam calls for the
subjugation or death of non-believers. Not just Christians and Jews, but
all
non-Muslims are at danger due to this plague on humanity. Christian
schoolgirls get bombed/decapitated in Indonesia, Christian nuns get
stabbed
and churches burned in Egypt, Buddhists get their heads cut off in
southern
Thailand, Hindus beaten to death in Kashmir, black Christians castrated
and
put into slavery in Sudan... the list goes on forever.
Muhammad means The Praised One in Arabic. The Praised One was under the
control of demons for 23 years of his life. Although nobody knows his real
name, he is called the Rasool or Prophet. He is also referred to as
al-insan
al-kamil, meaning the perfect man. According to the muslims, their idea of
a
perfect man was one who raped little girls and decapitated Jews.
According to the demon worshippers, "Allah" is the one true God. Now
Allah is pretty much Satan, but Muslims have been convinced that he is
God.
The pedophile and mass murderer known as Muhammad (may pig shit cover him)
was a completely delusional psychopath, and Allah was his alter-ego who
revealed the Koran to him in a series of revelations. So when Muhammed
heard
voices in his head, it was the word of God. And the way they eventually
wrote it down is said to be the literal words of God. Changing a comma
would
be blasphemy. Here are some examples of what Muslims consider the actual
words of God:
* Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion
shall reign supreme." (8:39)
* "God revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with
you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of
the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their
fingers!' " (8:12)
* "When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you
find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for
them.
If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to
go
their way. God is forgiving and merciful." (9:5)
* "Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and
deal
rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home a
Atheism and Deism are actually very close, but there are practical differences.
;^)
If you are the sort of atheist who believes that the universe behaves in an organized and rational fashion, that it has rules and properties that once figured out remain consistent, then you are, for all practical intents and purposes, very much like a Deist.
The only difference is that a deist would claim that these rules exist because a rational being created the universe, and then left us on our own. I describe it as: "God has left the building."
If, on the other hand, you are the sort of atheist who believes that there is no rational scheme, or that the universe is inherently chaotic and the properties we have discovered through science a mere overlay of our best guess, subject to revocation or misinterpretation without notice, you have nothing in common with your deist counterpart.
So, rational atheists and deists have little difference, other than origin of the universe, which the deists explain as "God" and the rational atheists describe as "who gives a damn unless we can measure it." I'd say it was balancing angels on the head of a pin to call such beliefs different, but the atheists would complain.
Rationalism is, of course, a subset of atheism, so there is a great deal of practical difference because atheism covers a greater spectrum of godlessness than simply those who subscribe to a rational universe. For instance, nihilists and deists have nothing in common.
Hope that helps.
--
Toro
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
Petition to the UK government:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/article775954.ece
Bunch of fucking barbarians. These are the same kind of people who were calling for that British volunteer to be executed when she allowed one of her students to name the class teddy bear after that sick puke "Mohammed," who gouge out womens' clitorises to keep them from cheating on their husbands, who banish rape victims from their communities, who gun down their critics in the street and pin hate tracts to their chest with a knife (Theo Van Gogh), who think they're justified in blowing up a cafe full of women and children, who hole up in the Church of the Nativity and wipe their ass with the Bible but go apeshit when someone farts near the goddamn Koran, who call for the assassination of the Pope when he suggests that they're violent, who commit arson and murder when someone draws a cartoon of their fake-ass bitch "prophet" and mocks them for being violent, etc., etc., etc... Can you really expect apes who stopped developing mentally 800 years ago to make rational judgments?
Those 60 people probably got relatives expecting them back in their family.
If these 60 people had one friend and one relative there would be already 150 people waiting in grief.
It's not as small as it appears like, it's just a number, although a number with numbers attached to it.
Which people tend to forget is the outcome of one individual towards many....
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Atheist would not try to insert law saying you should be stoned to death by naming your teddy joseph or whatnot, or even try to introduce in school that earth is created and evolution is false. I am not saying they would be better and a corrupt atheist would be as bad as a corrupt religious, but at least the NON-corrupt one would be a step above because they would not in their decision introduce like a certain president "god". Freedom of religion include freedom FROM religion. There are bottom feeder everywhere so let us not try to compare who would do his worst, ok ?
Furthermore up to now a former president said in public that atheist should not be considered citizen or something in that fashion. I have yet to hear of ANY president saying the same on a Christian.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Comparing Atheism to a faith is akin to think that "not collecting stamp" to be a hobby. Furthermore consider that ALL so called religious people do not believe in each other gods, and even less PAST gods which are not worshiped anymore. In a fashion they are all atheist : from the N gods that mankind made up, they don't believe in N-1 (monotheist) or N-x with xWould you call a blind fanatic somebody disbelieving unicorn existence ? Gnome ? Santa Claus ? you may give religion a free pass thinking it is not comparable to the previous, but the error is on your side. You would first have to demonstrate gods are different than unicorns or dragon (or santa claus). Good luck on that to have non circular definition which demonstrate that belief in god existence is different to belief in unicorn existence...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Q) What is the best way to deal with cultures who continue to subscribe nonsensical barbaric behavior?
A) Have the FSM unleash Strega Nonas pasta pot upon their heathen lands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strega_Nona
Comparing Atheism to a faith is akin to think that "not collecting stamp" to be a hobby. Furthermore consider that ALL so called religious people do not believe in each other gods, and even less PAST gods which are not worshiped anymore. In a fashion they are all atheist : from the N gods that mankind made up, they don't believe in N-1 (monotheist) or N-x with x much less than N (polytheist). And final point : most of the atheist I know of say that since there is no evidence for gods or similar entity, then there is no reason to believe in such an entity. The same way we don't believe in Unicorn EITHER. Would you call a blind fanatic somebody disbelieving unicorn existence ? Gnome ? Santa Claus ? you may give religion a free pass thinking it is not comparable to the previous, but the error is on your side. You would first have to demonstrate gods are different than unicorns or dragon (or santa claus). Good luck on that to have non circular definition which demonstrate that belief in god existence is different to belief in unicorn existence...
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I think you are completely right. I wonder though, why do we allow such people to vote? Voting is a big responsibility, and voting without having done any research of any kind as to what effects their vote will have should be forbidden. Of course, setting up a procedure to determine who should be allowed to vote has obvious problems of its own. But simply allowing any redneck to vote without any consideration to the welfare of the nation as well as other nations cannot be the solution, can it?
...but this may be the first time someone has been sentenced to death for using the internet.
While it's certainly terrible to hear something like this is happening, the person is not being sentenced to death for using the internet. They're being sentenced for doing something much more specific. If somebody in the U.S. drove from one town to another and then shot somebody, they wouldn't go to jail for driving on the road.
The internet might have been used during this, well... "crime"... but you can certainly use the internet in Afghanistan (if you can get access) without getting condemned to death.
Commentary lines like this one annoy me because they're bad logic, bad summarization, and just bad in general for the brain.
And this is what you get when your Government loses sight of the ball, leaves a job half done and doesn't really try to improve things. We spend our treasure, the lives of our sons and fathers/daughters and mothers to remove a religious totalitarian regime which harbored those who attacked us and then we leave that same religious culture in charge. We leave a token force in Afghanistan, leave half interested 'NATO' to do the job and they have to be begged to provide troops and support so we can continue the Iraq mistake. We leave the same ground, the same seeds and act surprised when the same damn intolerant religious bulls**t sprouts up again. Thanks again incompetent Bush administration.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
For better or worse, the Iraqi parliament has begun allowing Baath party loyalists to reapply for their old jobs. AFAIK, the only people who will be turned away based on their Baath affiliation will be Saddam's innermost circle, etc.
Of course, the only reason this happened was to help quiet the increasingly violent and vocal Baathists. It remains in my mind a step forward from killing them all instead. Progress is being made, but slowly, just like American democracy.
I am no fan of this war, but I honestly see growing pains where some see utter failure. Only time will tell.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
How can you have free speech with Islam? How can you have democracy without free speech? What point is there in trying to bring democracy to islamic countrys?
This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
Sounds right to me. In Afghanistan, criticizing Islam is a crime. The law doesn't say "don't blaspheme Islam unless you're a journalism student." If you can't do the time (or in this case, death), don't do the crime, as they say. (Couldn't find an appropriate companion for "crime" that rhymed with "death." Sorry.) You can say the law is "stupid," but that' doesn't change it. In the U.S. it's illegal to grow, or burn and inhale the fumes of, certain plants. Most agree it's a stupid law, but you'll still get busted for it. The most important aspect of any civilized society is unwavering, unquestioning respect for the law, no matter how stupid or arbitrary the law may be.
If he doesn't like the law, he should have gotten involved in his government and helped change the state religion to something less oppressive, or gotten involved in Islam, became an important Islamic figure, and re-interpret the relevant sections of Sharia law to be more friendly to women. But just violating the law because you disagree with it is stupid, and nobody should be surprised that he got busted and sentenced for it.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic. It's an indictment of idiot hardliners who ignore the point of civil disobedience, and loudly proclaim "The Rule of Law," over basic logic.
"But I have never ever witnessed such hatred, ignorance, cruelty, absurdity, hypocrisy in my life .. called as if originating from the depths of that same religion I am committed to!"
How can you be so sure that you are really following the true Islam? So many imams and other Islamic religious leaders calling for all that hatred and violence appear to be pretty familiar with the Quran (and Sunnah if they are Sunni) as well, regularly reciting verses to back their actions.
Good luck convincing nonmuslims that your religion "is not like that" if you can't even convince enough other muslims.
I think the muslims should settle amongst _themselves_ what their religion is, as soon as possible, rather than leave it for later.
Most muslims don't know what the Quran says because it's not in a language they understand, so all they know is what someone else tells them. Saying that you cannot have translations (or translations are bad) seems silly since eventually _someone_ has to tell the muslims what the Quran allegedly says, so you might as well have a bunch of experts to come out with a mainstream translation with areas where the meaning is unsure (or contested) marked out.
Saying that only a few can have access to the Quran is just going the way of Scientology (or the old Catholic Church), and that's not very good is it?
Do be very careful though - it's not easy to have a reasonable and peaceful debate with your head detached from the rest of your body.
There, fixed that for you.
As for your statement and my corrected version thereof, it has already happened. They just haven't sentenced anyone to death for using the internet just yet. Give it a few months, though.
So, how many countries are there where every person is from the one ethnic group?
Your point seems to make some pretty strange assumptions about what entitles someone to be from a country. Its also a rather naive statement, as if the western definition is the only one that fits.
America has how many distinct ethnic groups? Some native, some arrived in the last few hundred years. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't like to be lumped into one common group, but equally sure they're pretty happy with being under just the one government.
Afghanistan is a region which once had a centralized government, which it lost. Now it wants one back...
Where is this list that you claim terrorism is the 456th leading cause of death.
So I can add something half interesting, please take a look at this bit of research done by Jim (clicked about link). It is not authoritative, but it is interesting. It is basically a few comparisions of leading causes of death, compared to the 9/11 attacks. Of course this does not take into account the economic impact of 9/11, but it does make one wonder if it really is worth the billions of dollars and lost liberties to attempt to prevent again.
All posts released under the GNU Free Documentation License
Islam Will kick your ass and kill you for thinking. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/02/islam-will-kick.html Instead, it is about "power and control".
It is about religion integrated with politics, intimidation, torture, death, rape, child sacrifice, and world domination.
Islam and Democracy are incompatible. Islam and anything else are incompatible. Islam and those who claim "moderation" in Islam are incompatible. When it comes time for the 'moderates', they will have to choose conquest, or death, like the rest of us.
Is Islam a No, it is a amalgamation of political power and religion, a religion of conquest and war.
Has it ties with dictatorships of the past, integrated into its practices to this day? http://tellthechildrenthetruth.com/
Do women have a life at all under Islam? NO!
"UK: Muslim Families Who Use Rape And Violence To Enforce "Honor"" http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003964.html
Family of Muslim Teen invited men to rape her. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/02/family-of-musli.html
Or any of these: 253 posts categorized "The Truth About Islam" http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/the_truth_about_islam/index.html
Or this: "On Islamic Misogyny--Buried Alive?" http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/01/17/on-islamic-misogyny%E2%80%94buried-alive/
and
Michelle Malkin, Islam: http://michellemalkin.com/category/islam/
and
American Thinker: http://www.google.com/search?q=islam+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Famericanthinker.com%2F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The point is, this is not about censorship, but about world domination, even to the point of destruction of themselves. Seems crazy, and it is to Western values and reasoning. But from birth, they have been taught differently. Oh, I guess there might be some clues here:
"At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war." http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
Believe it. This is about the Last Crusade, World War III, and Armageddon, IF they can find a way to make it so. We had better be aware of the dangers and take the appropriate actions.
...and, freaking crucial difference incoming: nobody is getting the death penalty for saying so.
America has made many contributions to the world, but one is the sort of radical notion that Salt Lake City and San Fransisco can be in the same country and nobody has to die to make it happen. (Although for a few months every four years we do our best to pretend otherwise.)
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Somebody needs to go in there and get him.
If we can publicly wage war on whomever we want, certainly we can send somebody in there secretly to kick some ass and save the man.
Of course that's assuming we really are all about liberating the oppressed and ensuring freedoms for all.
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
Oh we're a religion of peace, sentence to death
Sentence to death, sentence to death
We're a religion of peace, sentence to death
Rapture, raise me up!
There's heathens off the starboard bow...
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?