Slashdot Mirror
Islamists In Bangladesh Demand Murder of More Bloggers
An anonymous reader writes "Days after the killing of leftist blogger Thaba Baba, mosques throughout Bangladesh called for a popular uprising to demand the killing of other bloggers who had held a rally calling for the death of Jama'at-e-Islami leaders convicted of war crimes. This happens in an atmosphere of ongoing tension between Left and Right, with the leftist government threatening to outlaw rightist parties while the right uses violence to quiet selected enemies."
These few loud attention seekers do not represent Islam any more than Westboro' Baptist represents Christianity. They may respectively have their flaws, but don't believe that the most radical examples are representative of the whole.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Yeah, who knew WMD really meant words of mass destruction. No wonder we didn't find any in Iraq, we weren't looking in the libraries.
This is not a dispute between left and right, at least not in the sense that we are used to in the so-called "West". The two antagonistic parties here are secularists on the one hand, and islamistic religious fundamentalists on the other. These two groups are not even in a very roundabout way related to the old left-right dichotomy we are used to. Except perhaps the fact that Western leftists also generally seem to weigh in on the secular side of things, but that is about the point where any similarities end.
I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit I am the emperor of lies, you grovel at my feet I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain And still you play the sycophant and revel in you pain And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate I am the politician, and I decide your fate
I march before a martyred world, an army for the fight I speak of great heroic days, of victory and might I hold a banner drenched in blood, I urge you to be brave I lead you to your destiny, I lead you to your grave Your bones will build my palaces, your eyes will stud my crown For I am Mars, the god of war, and I will cut you down.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Unfortunately for this "distinction" to have much meaning, you need to have the alleged "average" people and clerics of Islam start denouncing the actions of these "loud attention seekers" more strongly than a token, "it wasn't us."
Do a large number of these "average" people of Islam show up at the places where these "attention seekers" go, to make a shield between them and their targets, like a lot of people (both Christian and non-Christian) do at Westboro "events"?
Killing anyone for their ideological or political positions often results in retaliatory violence.
Calling for the killing of extremists for war crimes wouldn't go unnoticed or unpunished. If these individuals are willing to kill the masses surely one more won't be too much of a burden. It's not surprising that calling for the execution of anyone of any party - especially if they are in postions of power - resulted in this "preemptive" death.
Killing people for their words isn't right, but it's been going on since the beginning of humanity and will continue for the simple reason that silencing your critics is an effective way of preventing others from doing the same.
It's a battle between secular democratic government and koran-thumping nutballs who want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else at sword point.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
One who threatens violence admits he's lost the argument. That doesn't help the bloggers, but still...
Timeo hominem unius libri
These always turn out great for the aggressors.
You idiot. You apologist.
www.prophetofdoom.net
They DO represent muslims, because Islam is pure evil, just like its inventor, 'Mo-ham-head', who was a mass murderer, multiple rapist, and a paedophile - all documented by MUSLIMS for 1400 years, because they think those crimes are okay, as long as 'god' tells them to do it.
You really are a moron of the first order.
Do you have nothing against Islam?
Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, mutiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...
Islam... in layman's terms
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- 0.6% Muslim
Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
China -- 1.8% Muslim
Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
Norway -- 1.8% Muslim
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- 2% Muslim
Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
Spain -- 4% Muslim
Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- 8% Muslim
Philippines -- 5% Muslim
Sweden -- 5% Muslim
Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- 10% Muslim
India -- 13.4% Muslim
Israel -- 16% Muslim
Kenya -- 10% Muslim
Russia -- 15% Muslim
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:
Albania -- 70% Muslim
Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
will never harness intelligence more than that of a beast. Sad really..
Relevant bit of history: Until 1971, Bangladesh used to be called East Pakistan and the current Pakistan was called West Pakistan. Both parts together made up Pakistan, but the East and the West didn't share a common language or culture. In 1952, the West tried to impose Urdu as the sole official language, which resulted in people protesting, and dying, to protect Bangla (Bengali) on Feb 21, 1952. This was eventually recognized by the UN as the International Mother Language Day
But the attitude didn't change, and after losing an election overwhelmingly to a political party based mostly in East Pakistan, the loser from the West worked with the military to not hand over the power and instead let loose The Pakistani Army, which, with the help of local collaborators (Rajakars), killed 3 million people and raped 200,000 women in 1971. One of the stated reasons was to "Protect Islam."
Fast forward to 2012. Now there is a war-crimes trial going on for some of the top Rajakars, and like the Arab Spring, social media headed by young bloggers took a leading role in holding the war criminals accountable.
So the Rajakars, who predominantly belong to a party called Jamaat-E-Islami, are trying to inflame popular sentiment (which is overwhelmingly against them) through propaganda that all bloggers are Atheists. Their campaign is funded by huge influx of money from the middle east and a network of highly profitable businesses in Bangladesh. They own TV stations and newspapers that are using photoshopped images to show the alleged debauchery and insults to Islam of the so-called Atheists.
So this is not just a left vs. right issue as people elsewhere might interpret it. This is an active campaign for the Talibanization of Bangladesh along with a campaign to protect people who allegedly committed crimes against humanity.
The process is not to ban just rightist parties (there are plenty)--the process aims to ban Jamaat-E-Islami, which has never clearly stated that their role in 1971 (of helping with genocide and rape) was wrong, and which is headed by people who actively participated in the genocide and rape.
For freedom-loving people everywhere, this must not be allowed to stand. "Atheists bloggers" is just a red herring--don't let this cheap trick by alleged criminals muddy the water.
well said...
Fuck Beta
Oh wait, WB is just annoying but not outright killers.
How many people are forced to live under rule of the Westboro Baptist church against their will?
Oh wait, they do not get to enforce their rules on others.
So... they are the same how?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
For those of you who are a bit confused by the above post, let me translate it for you:
Blog on, Garth!
Blog on, Wayne!
Problem solved.
And some more copypasta for you AC.
A few of the Muslim percentages are just a touch misleading.
For starters, the Muslim population of China is largely concentrated in the far western autonomous region of Xinjiang (Sinkiang), an area which shares a long border with a number of the former Soviet Central Asian Republics (Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan), and the Muslims of Xinjiang are largely members of the Turkic Uygur ethnic group.
Trinidad & Tobago and Guyana have always had a large East Indian community. While the vast majority of these are Hindus, it would stand to reason that some of them were emigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh (most likely when the latter was still part of Pakistan) as these two countries are considered "East Indian".
As to India, amazingly there were actually SOME Muslims who didn't want to migrate back in 1947-48 to become part of the Muslim nation of Pakistan. Even more intriguing, the most recent religious tensions in India have been due to the majority Hindus, with Sikhs also being involved. Muslim tensions in India have been primarily confined to the Kashmir region.
Regarding Israel, it should be remembered that the Muslim population of ISRAEL are considered legally distinct from those of the Palestinian Territories. Israel's religious groups (including JEWS and Christians) are given a great deal of autonomy over their own people. There are purely religious courts which deal exclusively with Jews and exclusively with Christians on a number of social issues, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. Each religious group is permitted to establish schools with minimal interference by the State--Jewish schools (yeshivas) run by Orthodox Jewish groups segregate students on the basis of gender just as Muslim schools (madrassas) do. Israel has historically had less trouble with its Muslim CITIZENS than the nation has had with Palestinians. (Muslims who hold citizenship in the State of Israel are exempt from the military service required of other Israelis; then again, so are any number of ultra-Orthodox Jewish citizens as long as those Jews are enrolled in a religious school.)
Ethiopia, it should be noted, has always had a very large percentage of Muslims. (That it's given as less than 33% suggests that figures may be very shaky. A figure I have from about 5 years ago indicates that between 40 and 50% of the country's population is Muslim.) In spite of its inclusion in this fear-mongering list, Ethiopia has been surprisingly calm in terms of inter-religious activity. The country's been incredibly troubled in the last 30 years, but little of that trouble has really been due to religious infighting WITHIN the country (there's been far more ethnically-based conflict as well as regional secessionist movements--Eritrea's led to the region's independence).
Bosnia is really out of place on this list. Apparently *someone* wasn't paying very close attention to the news during the 1990s. It was the Muslims of Bosnia who were largely targeted for ethnic cleansing by Bosnia's CHRISTIAN Serbs. Had the Serbian population of the country not been backed by Milosevic in his attempt to annex whole swaths of Bosnian (and Croatian) territory as part of "Greater Serbia" when Bosnia seceded from Yugoslavia, and had the Serbs accepted being part of a multi-ethnic Bosnia-Herzegovina, the country could have been as relatively peaceful as it had under Tito's rule. (Even following the death of Tito, Bosnia was relatively strife-free in spite of its multi-ethnic makeup. The Yugoslav republics of Croatia and Slovenia, largely homogenous regions, saw more strife in the post-Tito years.) In other words, Bosnia's troubles have had almost nothing to do with its Muslim population (and, it should be remembered that it was OTHER Muslim nations, not Bosnia, which urged Muslims go to Bosnia to fight).
Chad. Chad. What can one say about Chad except for the fact that its Muslim population (like Bosnia) has had little to do with its woes
Someone should tell CNN to cover this. It would really ruin their stupid "Islam is peace. They're just like you and me" documentary barrage. Islam is violent EVERYWHERE in the world. Get over it and stop pretending it's something else.
Anders Bro, they let you have internetz?
But ya
Christianity grew up. It's not perfect, it still has plenty of crazies in various kinds, but by and large Christianity grew out of the crusades mentality. Islam by and large has not.
Thus I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to criticize Islam in a way they do not criticize Christianity (I'm an atheist by the way). That Christianity was all "kill the unbelievers" 700+ years ago does NOT give Islam license to be that way today. Society can, and should, advance. I would hope that in 700 years people would look back on society today and be glad that their society was even better than it is now.
In very many ways Islam is still largely stuck in the Dark Ages and it needs to stop. We shouldn't give it a pass because Christianity was also in the Dark Ages several centuries ago.
First of all, I don't know almost nothing about Islam (just tons of facts found on Wikipedia), but I have met descent people with that religion. While it's middle age mentality plays some background in all this, my pick is it's popularity within uneducated, poor masses are adding more to these outbursts of violence.
Second part is - while we all love to trash religions in the name of the free speech, and enjoying anonymity given by Internet (at least from dumb ass religious nuts), blogging about how backwards Islam goes in a country with lot of uneducated people with Islamic heritage is not very smart. Islam in many places is actual strange parallel political system. Yeah, yeah, it shouldn't be, but it is so. So if you really about to challenge that mob, you must be ready to deal with brunt of anger and violence. How Tea Baggers in US would react if someone would call a ban for their party?
Third and final part - it's getting tiresome for geeks to being more and more disconnected from real life. Yes, religion is that strange thing you don't dig. Yes, all these religious nuts and populists - it would be very nice to live without them. But not everyone with that religion is nut or manipulative screwball. And even if people are not smart as you are, acting very reactionary to all stuff religion won't make them your friends. But if you want your ideas actually work, you need to convince them.
Said all that, nothing justifies shouting for murder. Those people must get arrested for trying to incite violent unrest.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Oh wait it doesnt. Maybe Norway...nope. Okay how about Denmark? Nah.
Surely ultraviolent costa rica...wait they dont have an army nor much violence to speak of.
There are oodles of peaceful left of center social democratic governments that have been stable and democratic for decades.
Many people on this planet, for whatever reason, are in possession of a feeble mind. Religion is too much for them. Although religions contain some good advice, most practitioners can't even keep to these simple rules. Some of those being, "don't kill" another being "show compassion", yet another "Show tolerance". These and other rules are laid out in the major religions time and time again. Most people are to imbecilic even to keep to simple rules. That being the case I propose all the worlds religions are made illegal, banned. Their corrupt institutions dismantled. Their vast sums of wealth distributed to the needy and poor. That people are actually educated and not indoctrinated with nonsensical fairy tales.
>> And what do you think Islamists are?
An answer then... because you asked so politely...
At my school they always told me that these muslim people are followers of the religion of love, peace and respect. And that any misconduct of that group could, and SHOULD, be played down with either:
- other religions are violent as well, look at the crusaders, the IRA, abortion-clinic-arsonists, the KKK. (Funny that they never mentioned Sikh / Hindu / other religions huh?)
- Those people 'lost' their religion, so any killings have NOTHING to do with islam.
Now, years later I know better.
9/11, 3000 deaths, by Saudi Arabian muslims.
2002 bomblast in Bali (Indonesia), 200 killed by muslims
2004 muslims killed 250 schoolkids in Beslan (Russia)
2004 muslims blew up 190 people in Madrid (yurp)
7/7 London, 52 killed by... wait for it... muslims
2008 muslims the Mumbai (India) blast killed 160 people.
2013 muslims murdered 13 people in Hyderabad (India, last week)
That totals 3,865 of only this horrendously light weight list. There are thousands of smaller cases like the girl that was shot in the face (by muslims) because she wanted to be educated. Or that (Christian) girl with a little mental handicap that was accused of burning pages of a koran and was almost killed by the people in the neighbourhood. The list could be far more elaborate. Nevertheless I heard about Breivik, and yes people are killed by white-power groups and all... but that is like saying that a paper plane is equal to a 747 because they both fly.
To me things are clear, this religion will never stop until either the last muslim is dead or the whole world is muslim.
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
As head of the German Socialist Party (NAZI), Adolf was as left wing as they get. Except that the communists were even more socialist, so Adolf and the boys were considered right wing by comparison. After WWII communists began calling those who want less government "right wing" as a verbal engineering ploy to discredit them, and the current "right versus left" association stuck. All that being said, what on earth does Islamists murdering bloggers have to do with left versus right wing? Are you so left wing that you are using this issue to discredit those who want less government?
Indeed.
In the East, they'll kill you for religion.
In the West, they'll kill you for money.
I wouldn't classify him as a leftist or a Liberal, more like a liberal. The two former categories are too authoritarian.
So you see rightist autocracies as a solution to leftist democracies? I understand an abhorrence to the idea of "the needs of many" outweighing the needs of the one and all but, seriously, do you really believe the needs of the few out weigh the needs of the many? Maybe it could just be that your understanding of liberal democracy and mine do not jive? Most authoriatarians that I've simply have a belief that they are somehow superior than others.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
To me things are clear, this religion will never stop until either the last muslim is dead or the whole world is muslim.
Sadly that's not even true, the different Muslim sects are at war with each other.
What you're saying is.... threatening to ban war criminals from politics is as bad as being a war criminal committing mass murder. Someone needs to pull their ideological shit filled head out of their ass.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
since I studied Chinese History in college and the book is supposed to destroy the whole validity of "Asia Studies" or as he calls it "Orientalism". I wanted to get my worldview rocked and realize that my whole college career was imperialist and that everything I learned about the East was wrong...but instead it actually made me more proud of Western Civilization and its "will to knowledge" and its secularism and dynamism. So glad I read the book because anarchists and leftist douches always tried to make me feel bad about my major by mentioning this book so I finally read it and it is a weak case. In fact it's actually convinced me of the superiority of Western Civilization!
Not precisely on topic but I just want to tell you, my Western secular scientific comrades, not to let anyone use that book to attack you especially when very likely they have not even read it themselves.
What rightist autocracies? The only one that comes to mind was Pinochet in Chile.
Its not going to happen as long as extremist countries like Saudi Arabia are an ally of the world's only super power. Saudi Arabia actually goes out and promotes extremism. Hell, the freaking religious police hits 10-12 year olds with canes if they are out playing soccer during prayer times. Growing up there, thats one of the most vivid memories I have, running from these idiots lest you get hit with canes, money was good so dad moved there for a while.
They have tons of oil money, you take this oil money and spend it in poor Islamic countries like Afghanistan and this is the shit that happens. There are direction on how to behave in a war in Quran, i.e. fight the enemy, Islam does not tell you to show the other cheek but tells you to stand for whats right. This is what is quoted again and again to show extremism in Quran. This is exactly what Islamic extremist do, point out to drone strikes where countless innocent have died to establish US is the devil. Truth is somewhere in between, on both sides its the necessities of war, US is no more the devil than Islam is extremist.
No one ever talks about how quran tells you to behave in normal days, the instructions are "not to sit with those who you disagree with", yah thats it, no killing, no extremism, "walk away". Besides, if any of you picked the quran and did read it, it has tons of stuff on importance of "patience". Again and again it tells you god is with those who are patience. God himself is extremely patience, and yada yada yada.
Google tells me patience is a noun: The capacity to accept or tolerate delay, trouble, or suffering without getting angry or upset.
This is clearly not what Islam stands for today in the world view as well as those who are extremists, at least they are on the same page. If it suits you to believe in what these extremist believe, then be it, you are NOT better for it.
Nonetheless, drastic measures are needed to curb Saudi wahabism being spread to poor countries. Its not even so much organized by the Saudi Government, they do make there donations and shit, but its the populace, millionaires will establish religious schools and tell them to teach "whats right", unfortunately they believe "right" is intolerance and extremism.
Personally, I am tired of explaining this again and again to people, nut jobs have screwed up this religion from discovering algebra to poets and chemists, its come to this.
Why US let this happens (think Russians in Afghanistan during cold war) is a topic for another day.
By the book, Muslims are commanded to live with each other and respect the lives of others.
By the book, Christians are commanded to stone to death anyone who disobeys the sabbath, does not believe in (their) god, breaks commandments, etc.
All you have to do is read the bits you want and ignore the bits that say different.
You are not actually helping the case of Muslims with your post. You actually make the case that Muslims are terrorists, even to other muslims.
And short of IRA and Brittain being at war over "religion" (sort of by proxy), you'd be hard press to see the Roman Catholics waring with Lutherans or Baptists. Or Buddists waring with Taoists.
If you look at a map, with active conflicts, you can bet that Islam is involved on one side or the other and come out ahead ... by a long shot.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Right, because those are the only two options. /sarcasm Typical Liberal offering up False Dicodomy logic. I see this so often it isn't even funny.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Or US Senators wanting drone strikes agianst Wikileak staffers.
The difference is only why they want other people dead for what they say.
Among the many arguments against organised religion, Islam is by far the most persuasive.
That was the last AC's point idiot. You just insulted him for agreeing with you.
Calling yourself a Muslim does not make you a member of the Muslim faith.
(see, the problem is that every religion is based on personal revelations as proof. And all you have there is the word of the one doing it that they are what they say. WBC aren't the worst Christians, however. Christian African states murder men considered to be gay and an abomination to the lord. killing raped girls because they are now unclean. Lots of similarly abhorrent behaviour from self-avowed - and self-avowed is EVERY religion's membership - christians)
I don't know why parent has been marked Funny - it should be marked insightful. Check this http://kanewj.com/wbc/
Not to Godwin all this, but I'd go with Hitler and Mussolini as the classic examples of rightist autocracies.
All terrorists are Muslim, therefore all Muslims are terrorists.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Bloody hell, that's almost on the same order of magnitude as the horrible destruction of one crazy christian cowboy. (If you multiplied it by 30). His other war for fun and profit isn't as bad, but it still surpasses your list.
To me things are clear, this religion will never stop until either the last muslim is dead or the whole world is muslim.
That's because you're a hate-mongering bigot who is contributing to the problem. (How did this get voted up?)
Yeah, look how fast that happened in Canada...
It is not a false dichotomy to say that there is a conflict between the needs of the many and the needs of the few. It is a dichotomy. You cannot have perfect equality and perfect freedom together, one has to be compromised.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Razakars
(it's a Muslim word, meaning "volunteer")
It makes a DMCA takedown notice look tame in comparison. It's a sobering reminder that much of the world still lives under the values of 1300's.
Table-ized A.I.
post something current please.
New Economic Perspectives
Really? You can't think of a single right wing authoritarian regime other than Pinochet?
Hitler? Mussolini? Argentine generals? Hell, Napoleon? King Richard the Lionhearted? Julius Freaking Caesar? All pretty far to the right, along with most authoritarian rulers throughout history.
Life needs more saving throws.
"age-old logical fallacy" - no, its down to plain old pig ignorance of anyone outside their sphere and idiots who make stupid claims like Barak Obahama is a muslim. They are just idiots, plain and simple, thick idiots.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Except that to consider all terrorists Muslim, you must ignore groups like the IRA, FARC and ETA.
Most of the commentary focuses on Islam. However, I find it downright odd that the anonymous poster chose to make a direct correlation to to rightist violence. It seems to me that the blogger died not because of a leftist leaning but because of offending Islam. So there's no tie there. I also think we can all find plenty of examples of both leftist and rightist violence thus proving that human beings justify violence no matter which side we proclaim.
Not sure about Hitler or Mussolini - they mixed up ideologies of left and right.
Richard the lionheart was driven by religion
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Mussolini emerged from the left to found the Fascist movement. He was originally a member of the Italian PSI, and once was the editor of Avanti!. Mussolini's Fascist movement emerged from Socialism, just like the German Workers's Party, and later Hitler's National Socialist German Worker's Party. I suppose you could make the argument that these meet the classical definition of right wing, but then you would have to say that the modern day Democratic party in the US is right wing. There are many economic parallels between the American Progressive movement and the Italian Fascist movement.
Not sure about Hitler or Mussolini - they mixed up ideologies of left and right.
Richard the lionheart was driven by religion
Hitler himself was solidly right. The NSDAP had a leftist wing led by Gregor Strasser (the Strasserists) but Hitler showed him what he thought of that in 1934.
right.
let's look at how many people the US has killed in the past 10 years.
ONe of the odd things I've run into with Muslim coworkers, and I'm posting this AC because I don't feel like getting flamed, is that they are very calm and peaceful.
But when you start discussing religion, they'll make crazy ass statements "oh, yes, if you renounce Islam, you should be beheaded" in a very calm and peaceful way, with no anger in their voice. Like saying the sky is blue. Because to them, it is logical and perfectly OK. You never saw Osama Bin Laden shouting, did you, but he LOVED to kill.
Crazy violent Christians usually run around looking all crazy and violent. same as crazy violent Atheists.
But some Muslims: it's like a weird internal secret.
My point is that in modern day American politics, belief in the free-market and individualism gets you labeled a right-winger. Hitler and Mussolini were fervent opponents of the free market and individualism. But when you start comparing the economic components and to a lesser extent the social components of Fascism to the American Progressive movement, parallels emerge.
It is quite possible that there are some theologeans here that modded my comment up. But let me be so bold as to reply to your comment.
>>But then we get to this:
>>[To me things are clear, this religion will never stop until either the last muslim is dead or the whole world is muslim]
>>This is the most ignorant and, frankly, stupid thing I've ever seen modded to +5, and I've been here a while.
>>I've got a muslim friend who is quite peaceful and tolerant. Did you mean "every last muslim (except for DahGhostfacedFiddlah's friend) is dead"?.
It is valid to tackle me on the "all of them"-bit because it is logical. You know a muslim who is apparently not violent at all. And that is good news isn't it? All swans are white, one black etcetera. But as far as everyone knows, one example is a bit flimsy as far as evidence goes. Have you seen the riots (stoning of people, petrol-bombing and RPG-ing embassies) for a... wait for it... cartoon... Thousands of hatebeards all being very violent to prove that they are not a violent group. How is that for ironic? These are not extremist nut-cases (not all of them), most of them are 'normal civilians'. There was a shopkeeper in Pakistan who refused to participate in such a protest, and he got killed by the mob. Because he 'left his faith' apparently, that is a normal thing for muslims.
>> Except that there are entire sects [wikipedia.org] of muslims who are dedicated to peace (pay particular attention to their view of "Jihad"). Perhaps you really
>> meant "every last muslim (except for DahGhostfacedFiddlah's friend and members of some sects) is dead"?
Yes, lets get to the word Jihad. There are two sorts, the violent one, and the not-violent one. The latter, fine no problem there. The violent one on the other hand is used ever since the beginning of islam. It made them into the great rulers of large parts of Asia, the Balkans, north Africa, just like Atilla the Hun put violence down as a concept. This continues to this day. Do not forget that! Remember Timbuktu?
The mentioning of a 'large silent and harmless group that is not visible' is the same tactic politicians use to scare their adversaries. As long as you do not know what they say in private, in the mosque, or elsewhere outside the reach of researchers you simply can not tell how many actually (dis)approve on terrorism and jihadism (the violent one). Nor can I for that matter.
The problem with research in this field is that muslims are allowed to lie through their teeth to non-muslims whenever the truth might hurt them. I forgot the name for this, but probably you will find it if you like.
>> But to ignore the billion or so muslims who aren't actively trying to kill us and lumping them in with the - what - 1000 or so that actually carried out the attacks you listed?
Try looking up the term Takfiri. This means in practical terms that one can radicalise out of controll, and no one can do anything because they fear to be made-out for non-believer which is enough to kill you on the spot. That is what happened to Pakistani shopkeeper I mentioned earlier. It is a bit the same like the previous point, you never know how many of those hatebeards are actually meaning what they shout, and vice versa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri
Nevertheless they know that the power of the many is more strong than the few radicals after the diverse arab-springs we have seen. Yet, no one is holding the idiots back. NO ONE. They all march after the big kettle drum. And when the attack on innocent people is successful, not one cleric would rise up and be true to the love/respect/peace bit that they always try to sell. No actually, they get on the streets in hordes shouting and clapping and dancing. So that is why I lump them all up. I had it.
That's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
That I agree on! That is the dumbest thing ever. And curiously, it is not MY invention, but theirs...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_w
rm -rf --no-preserve-root /
Needs of the many can be satisfied by totalitarianism, or do you not get that? Liberty is about understanding that Needs of the one (liberty) is the goal for all. If we dont' care about the Liberty of one, we cannot care about the liberty of anyone else.
The proper role of governance is to protect the liberties of the minorites, not mob rule of the majority. Most (D)s and (R)s don't understand or agree with this, not fully any way.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
False for The Netherlands. Yes, muslims like halal food and yes, they want it available. The food industry complies not because of threats, but mostly because 5% of the population is significant enough to cater to. It is no different from biologic food, vegetarian meals, etc. Now if one wouldn't be able to get bacon or pork anymore, that would be a problem, but the fact that aside dozens of non-halal choices there are also halal choices for sale is not an inorfinate influence.
There's a No True Scotsman in there for sure. Defining Leftists as totalitarian is a major fail here. Conservatives and Leftists have both become totalitarian at many points in history. The Nazis were far right to the core. Puritan communities could hardly be called "leftist", and yet they had a society with strict social control. If you had said "Libertarian" instead of "Conservative", then I would agree with you (and replacing "Leftist" with "Communitarian").
Where do you live where there are "crazy violent Atheists". Most of the atheists that I am aware of would be better described as pacifists (Christopher Hitchens being a notable exception, but I would still not consider him "crazy violent"). Flaming on reddit is entirely different than shooting up an abortion clinic or flying a plane into a building. Atheists tend to not kill over religion, since the entire reason they get frustrated is that religion is stupid.
Islam is about where Christianity was 500-800 years ago. That is, becoming a major world power and fighting to gain more power, becoming involved in economic and political wars in the name of the religion, and having wars between sects. What if back then the rest of the world had said "we'll never have peace until every last Christian is dead"?
The violent islamists are in the minority of all muslims. Muslims are speaking out against this (despite some people claiming it never happens). If we have modern day atrocities in the last 50-100 years done by Christians against non-Christian minorities, do we blame all Christians for this?
Just to make this abundantly clear for anyone who doesn't take time to check this out on Snopes et al.:
QUOTE:
"Before I was nine, I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel."
These lines were spoken by Ishmael, a fictional character in the novel The Haj by Leon Uris.
(Which speaks volumes about the credibility of the person who copy-and-pasted this screed, and everyone up the line from him who put it together.)
Attention fellow Slashdotters, Muslim here. I am issuing a binding fatwa on your asses.
If you want to make a sweeping, categorical, generalizing statement about Islam and the seething 20% of humanity that composes the Muslim world in all its diversity of societies, movements, specific political histories etc, fine.
That is the kind of Know-it-all attitude that makes this place such fun and makes you such a hit at parties.
But you must append one of the 2 following disclaimers:
* I have known more than 3 Muslims in my life on at least a passing acquaintanceship basis
or (more likely)
* I have not known more than 3 Muslims in my life on at least a passing acquaintanceship basis
The punishment for not obeying this fatwa is beheading. Specifically running your main machine as a headless box without X.
"How has President Obama's re-election fostered this popular uprising in search of your democratic freedoms?"
captcha: winning
Just so we understand this isn't some of-the-cuff polemic.
From at least 2008:
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=34302
While I have no desire to defend any religion, one can imagine some 30-something, standing in a beer hall, using this rant as his entry into politics.
Only if you don't kill enough of them.
It's almost impossible to have a real discussion using the labels "right" and "left". In the United States if you're a classical liberal you are by definition a right wing conservative. It's all nonsense.
France -- 8% Muslim
Did you know that France banned the hijab in public?
Your numbers seem to be based on census data, which tends to inflate the numbers. For example in the UK 55% of people claim to be Christians, but less than 5% regularly go to church.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think maybe what you mean to say is that if you are a classical liberal you are labeled a right wing conservative. But by definition, you are a liberal, which is distinctly different, if not the opposite of, a Liberal or Progressive.
This analysis is bullshit, because it completely ignores the difference between Salafi Islam and the rest of it.
E.g. the problems with Muslims in Russia started happening after Saudis started building their madrassah all over the place where they teach Salafism. Before that, when Muslim populations were largely adherents of local traditional forms of islam (be it Sunni or Sufi), there was no trouble. We've seen that happen in Chechnya, and now we're seeing the exact same thing happen in Tatarstan. Once Saudi preachers come in, you get jihad. But before that, everything is fine.
Saudi Arabia should be destroyed as a fief of Wahhabis (House of Saud). The current arrangement means that they have money to fund spreading their filth, and US guns to back them militarily. It is a disgrace.
You can also bet America is involved in one side or the other...sometimes even on the side of the Islamists for instance supporting Islamic rebels in Syria...
I judge things based on a Devil's Advocate philosophy. I honestly can say that I can't prove you wrong.
The only possible outlying example is Sterling Heights, Michigan (and to a lesser extent Dearborn). This tells me that they are sitting at 4%. It is quite peaceful compared to nearby areas, yet it does fall into your theory of proselytization of disaffected groups as there is a strong effort for African-Americans to join. They currently are at 5.2%, I must state this explicitly because in many regional Detroit areas it is whites that are the minority.
I will watch this in the coming years to see if the incredible relative wealth and high education of those areas could be a factor in proving you wrong. It is quite rare to see a Muslim (in traditional dress) driving around in a vehicle worth less than $80,000. Just a short distance away are neighborhoods that are more dangerous than Baghdad with the poverty to match, so this is an interesting bit of the country to study.
Yeah, because when terroristic theocratic nutbags have their demands for blasphemy executions granted, they'll never ever go to that well again.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
- Sir Winston Churchill
The problem with apologists for Islamist totalitarians is that they never look at the actual numbers. Go check the opinion surveys PEW research has done in Islamic countries. As an example, in Pakistan you get 80% approval for execution for apostates, adulterers, and blasphemers.
It is not a "fallacy" to point out that theocratic totalitarianism has widespread support in Islamic countries.
The majority of these comments can be summed up in two words: "citation needed" /.
I have to admit, I am disappointed
If we dont' care about the Liberty of one, we cannot care about the liberty of anyone else.
So you are for every one of those ones should receive the food, shelter, and medical care necessary to ensure their survival? If so, we may not be that far off in our beliefs.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
For you, the problem with apologists for Islamist totalitarians is that they don't exist. The reason this is a problem for you is that you desperately want them to be there, but since you can never find any you have to expose your dishonesty to the world by inventing them in strawman interpretations of things people actually said. Just as you did with the grandparent post.
In like Clint(on). Banglies', take care of your right wing killers or they will blow up Federal buildings and kill more people.
Listen douchebag, you're completely correct in what you say.
So you equate liberty with government handouts? Bizarre, if true.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
So you equate liberty with government handouts? Bizarre, if true.
I believe the founders chose to order it "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for a reason.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
And what do you think Islamists are?
They are people.
I shouldn't have to say more than that, but apparently that isn't enough. Some are violent, most aren't. That can be said of just about any group of people. Especially from a group that encompasses a fairly large percentage of the worlds population.
The US Democratic Party is center right.
Is it a secular idea? It is sacred to me. That is why I an a Unitarian - while we support liberal religion, we even support freedom from religion. I know no other faith that welcome atheists without trying to covert them.
Freedom of speech is the primary freedom from which all other freedom comes. It is the highest freedom.
... and this happens to break the trend...
what began as a protest against a war crimes trial verdict, has turned into a call to re-establish the secular constitution. yes the country is 80%+ Muslim; however only 1.5~2% votes for the pro-sharia style jamat party.
http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2013/02/19/media-blackout-why-is-not-the-world-acknowledging-shahbagh/
'â¦The significance of Shahbagh is that ordinary people have taken to the streets after a long, long time. This is not about legal arguments, or capital punishment morality, or political manoeuvring towards future elections. I believe deep inside, this is a visceral rejection of fundamentalism, and the end game which Jamaat brings to the table. On some level I think people realize that there is no room for us in the kind of world they want to build. Our people are secular at heart. Our women work. We love music, and dancing. We care about literature, and language. Even with thousands in Shahbagh chanting for death, there is, inevitably, pockets of song and dance and plays, outbursts of the sentimentality which is our national character. We were never meant to be a fundamentalist state. This Jamaat thing is alien, even when perpetrated on us by some of our own. Shahbagh is the silent majority rising up against the use of religion to bully, the issuing of bewildering fatwas, the adoption of Arab dress and Arab ways, the blatant distortion of the past, the peculiar assault on our culture. '
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:
Albania -- 70% Muslim
Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
Sudan -- 70% Muslim
I am an Albanian atheist and I call bullshit.
I don't really know the about the other countries you mention in this section or the other sections but in Albania there is no persecution of non-believers or as an atheist I would have felt it.
There is no ethnic cleansing/genocide. Please give me a single reliable source showing this.
Shariah Law is not applied.
And there is no jizya placed on infidels ever since we declared indipendence from the Ottoman Empire over a century ago (that should be when you last read about Albania I guess).
We have lots of problems but Islamic extremism is at most a minor one.
We are a NATO member country and we have sent small contigent of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan FWIW.
Yo, I'm a practicing Muslim /.er, just wanted to say that this vigilantism is not allowed in Islamic law, whether in a Muslim or non-Muslim country...don't believe everything you hear, there are powers that be that want you to believe Islam is a violent religion, etc., for political purposes.
Whenever i see an article like this, i step in and say something like this, but i would appreciate it if people learned about Islam themselves (and from proper Islamic sources). not everything the internet & mass media says is the truth.
Thank you, and peace
Had Muslims been like this for all the 1,400 years that the religion been on this earth? Is this what they were asked to do, by their prophet? Have they always been as vicious, ignorant and ruthless? My study of history does not say that all activities by the Muslims throughout the centuries are entirely without cause for concern. But, one thing seems certain, compared to how Christianity was during its first 1,500 years, Islam was quite peaceful and prosperous during its turn.
Then what changed? Why are Muslims like this today? The most crucial reason that I as someone as a Muslim can think about, is the systematic abuse of power by the current leaders of Muslim countries. Especially the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Every year, more than 4 million Muslims meet in Saudi Arabia where they come together to perform the Hajj. There, they are greeted by a local populace as subdued as any other brutal autocracy as the world has seen. The voice of the moderate educated Muslim who does not think the current Saud family's rule as acceptable is chased down. In their absence, only the voice that remain are of the illiterate fanatics, and they are joined by the grieving family and friends of the moderate educated Muslims.
Sadly, the western countries keep on supporting these regimes for the sake of oil, (for reasons which needs another long write up). This tacit support has helped these existing rulers to mute the voice of the moderate educated Muslims (which in turn adds fuel to the illiterate fanatics' message). Those who talk about peace and ideology are replaced with those who interpret religion to further violence and extremism. This is not an ideal world we live in, and it will not be any more ideal, if the population of the west, living in their protected democratic bubble, think that the problems of the Muslim world are only relevant when a catastrophe like 9/11 happens on their own land, and the only consequence of that is to enforce draconian laws, that goes against the very philosophies of individual freedom and right that their societies are based on.
My wishes and hope is resonated in the last 2 (two) lines of the first chapter of the Quran:
"Guide us to the Straight Path.
The path of those whom Your blessings are upon, not of those who You have cursed nor of those who have gone astray."
seems to be always drowning, starving, and killing. i am reasonably happy without doing any of these things
Don't forget the 100,000 to 200,000 killed by (mostly) Christian soldiers in the most recent invasion of Iraq. Or the thousands of people killed annually in India in lots of little outbreaks of Hindu-on-Christian and Hindu-on-Muslim sectarianism. Oh, chuck in around 3500 killed in the Ulster "Troubles" over the last 40-odd years too ; that's Orange-skinned-Christians massacring the heretical Green-skinned-Christians (with a number of Red-white-and-Blue-Skinned-Christians and others killed as "collateral damage"). And the half-dozen Green-jerseyed-Christians killed on my birthday morning a few years ago because they worshipped at the altar of a different Football Team than the Blue-jerseyed-Christians did.
Describing Christianity as a "mental handicap" ? ... no disagreement from my keyboard!
Yes, I believe that is precisely the plan. Glad to see that you've figured it out.
But I think the additional figures I've cited above should point out that the problem isn't Islam per se. It's religion, per se. As (IIRC) Christopher Hitchens once put it, "Religion poisons everything".
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"