Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fourth Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered

Posted by Soulskill on from the rest-in-peace dept.

An anonymous reader writes: In May we discussed news that three bloggers in Bangladesh had been targeted for brutal killings in recent months over what they wrote online. Now, the local branch of Al-Qaeda is claiming responsibility for a new victim, blogger Niloy Chakrabarti. "The journalist had contributed to the humanist blogging platform Mukto-Mona. His posts often were critical of Islam. Mukto-Mona was established by another blogger—Avijit Roy, who was murdered in Bangladesh in February." His murder was as ghastly as the previous three — six men broke into his apartment with machetes. Rights groups are condemning the killings and demanding that the government put a stop to them. "There is little doubt that these especially brutal killings are designed to sow fear and to have a chilling effect on free speech. This is unacceptable."

147 comments

  1. At least he ain't trying to "FIX" my computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Damn bastards.

  2. Justifiable under ISLAM by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      NO ONE expects the Al Qaida inquisition!

    3. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Doesn't that describe most legal systems in the world today?

    4. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    5. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by quantaman · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by ultranova · · Score: 1

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

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

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Most legal system have abolished the death penalty. Only retarded state still apply it like for example, the United State of American and Most Islamic country.

      The point of GP is that Islam apologists will often claim that Islam is a religion of peace that value life. These are of course lies, Islam only value Muslims. Everyone else are infidels and fair game for the worst atrocity.

    9. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The death penalty is not necessarily a bad thing it is what crimes it is used for as well as making sure the criminal being put to death is actually guilty. In the US the death penalty applies to crimes where lives are taken. The Islamic countries use the death penalty against homosexuals, drug offenses, and of course the ever popular blasphemy offenses. In the US someone sentenced to death is granted automatic appeals that often mean the sentence can be delayed for 10 to 20 years. And all the various Islamic psychopaths use religion as an excuse to gain power and wealth. Claiming religious piety as defenders of the faith just gives them an excuse for their excesses.

    10. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rule of law is written all over that. If the death penalty is currently the form of justice a society does want, so be it. Unless of course the Koran contains an independent moral philosophy, guiding the interpretation of that .. interpretation. A theologian could answer that question. The same pattern of adaptation to local customs and culture is apparent in other world religions as well. Religion is all about politics and compromise.

    11. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

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

    12. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The death penalty is not necessarily a bad thing [some kind of punctuation should go here] it is [wrong subject, perhaps you meant was "what matters is"] what crimes it is used for as well as making sure the criminal being put to death is actually guilty.

      People who write like you should be flayed to death with an orbital sander.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

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

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

      Bunch of pansies.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

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

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

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    15. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry mods but this is NOT insightful as the poster does not understand how the Koran works.

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

      Of course this also blows the whole "religion of peace" BS as the Hadiths that have come for the last 200 years have been "jihad jihad jihad" and since they came later they supersede the earlier peaceful passages and since Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers to help spread the reach of Sharia this works to their advantage, simply quote the old passages and never mention they were replaced centuries ago by the jihad Hadiths.

      Have you not wondered why these Islam apology groups can say they "condemn terrorism " or a specific terrorist but never come out and say this terrorism has broken the laws of Islam and should treat those that commit terrorism as not a follower of Islam? Its simple, its because they can lie to unbelievers but NOT about fellow Muslims and since they know the little rule about latter superseding they would be bearing false witness against groups that was in reality doing exactly what the faith tells them to, waging jihad.

      I would urge everybody who has any doubts read up a little on Wahhabism, a good place to start would be this this frontline article and then read up about the Sunni and Shia, they all do the same thing and all follow the supersedes rule which means you can really only look at the last 200 years worth of hadiths as everything else is treated as history, and what are all the new hadiths? Jihad jihad jihad.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

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

    17. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

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

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

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

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

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

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

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

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

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

    20. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thought has always been that if the "non-extremist" members of the group didn't want to be associated with the extremists, they'd create an offshoot of the religion, like what happened with the protestant movement in christianity.

      Of course, they probably fear retribution from the extremists as they would be viewed as non-believers or heretics after doing this.

      So until they're willing to take some kind of real stand against this, they'll continue to get lumped into the extremist category.

    21. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by unixisc · · Score: 3, Informative

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

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

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

    22. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by someone1234 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    23. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

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

      Except that cop-out doesn't save the Koran, philosophically. You also have the problem that we know that the Koran was heavily edited by Uthman, about 20 or so years after Mohammad's death who had the political power to order competing version destroyed. Versions that survived this event differ significantly from today's Koran, confirming the editing process.

      The New Testament, by contrast, was not compiled into a single work for hundreds of years. Before that the documents circulated independently. It wasn't until about the 8th century that the church had become powerful enough to physically enforce a cannon. Before the 3rd century the church was a persecuted organisation. The fact that these "contradictions" remain shows that the church did not attempt to edit and harmonize the New testament documents. Texts found today from before this time, about 25,000 full or partial texts in various languages, prove this lack of editing by being the same as what we have today, with mostly minor spelling and grammatical errors and no meaningful variations that affect core doctrines. It's so cute how some people go on about "bible contradictions" when, if you actually go and READ the Gospels and Acts as nothing more than what they undeniably are, Greco-Roman biographies you find that effectively all the "contradictions" arise from the following reasons;

      Deliberate misreading of the text. (Surprising how many "contradictions" fall under this category.)

      Translation issues that are resolved when read in the original Greek.

      Cultural Ignorance.

      Geographic ignorance

      Assuming that a work is a complete and total account of everything that occurred. This was not possible due to practical constraints. All 4 gospels and acts each fit on one standard-sized scroll from the 1st century, with Mark potentially being written on a smaller than standard scroll. There are many instances were events and conversations were compressed to save space. The trial before Pilate is just one example, where the conversation between Pilate and Jesus is compressed and details omitted in one account. Arguments from Silence

      Holding documents that were written in the 1st century to 20th century standards. Examples:
      Greco-Roman
      It was common and accepted practice for 1st century Greco-Roman biographies to be arranged topically, not chronologically. Chronological order should only be assumed if it is explicitly stated.
      Authors at that time, when mentioning themselves in a work, usually refer to themselves in the third person. See the works of Josephus as just one example.

      Transcription errors that are resolved via textual criticism. (The heard of pigs at Gadara that ran into the sea almost certainly actually occurred at Kursi,)

      Treating two accounts as describing the same event when they might actually be describing two separate, but similar events.

      People had multiple names at that time and clarification about who was being spoken to or about did not always happen. Calling conflicting minor details contradictions, when they are actually evidence for independent sources. Historians expect independent eyewitness sources to differ on the minor details of an event while agreeing on the major points. Just go ask 10 people how many planes crashed on 9/11. You will get answers that vary between 2 to 4. Does that mean that 9/11 did not happen? It does if you take the line of many biblical skeptics. If all accounts of an event read exactly the same it would be evidence of tampering, collusion, or the reliance on a single source.

      Treating the inerra

    24. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      as well as making sure the criminal being put to death is actually guilty

      ...which in the US fails (conservatively!) in about 4% of cases. Is that really worth it?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    25. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if a rule comes later that conflicts with a rule that comes earlier then the latter one supersedes the earlier one which takes care of conflicting passages.

      Hey, our legal system works like that, you insensitive clod! ;)

    26. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

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

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    27. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by unixisc · · Score: 1

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

    28. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

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

      You may not agree with their choices, but to call them "idiots" for not seeing the world as you do is horribly short-sighted. To them, the benefit (changing a few hearts and minds) may well have been worth putting themselves in harm's way -- not to mention that they can actually see any results they might be having, personally. They know what they're risking, but one does not run an insurgency against an oppressive force from a posh office in another country... at least not if one actually cares about the work.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    29. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

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

    30. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by unixisc · · Score: 1

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

      Most of these Hindus and Buddhists have over the last few decades fled to India, and Hindus, who were something like 30% of their population in 1971, are now 12% of the population and dwindling. So it's fine to support them from outside, which is what this group does and did. But having determined that it is safer to support anti-Islamic campaigns from outside, it is stupid to then go to Bangladesh for any reason. I have no idea whether this blogger Niloy lived outside Bangladesh or not, so wasn't commenting so much on him, than his late boss Roy who visited Bangladesh when he was safely settled in Australia

    31. Re:Justifiable under ISLAM by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've heard it's a part of Islam that it is undivided. That one has to be hard for a Muslim to believe, but it may discourage offshoots.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    The Left loves Islam (atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians) and they love blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.

    They must feel confused about who to cheer for in these murderous events.

    1. Re:Confusion by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The Left loves Islam (atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians) and they love blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.

      Bullshit. Stop spreading your FUD and lumping "left" together as if they all thought alike. They no more think alike than those on the right do.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    2. Re:Confusion by amiga3D · · Score: 0

      Generally they just try to ignore Islam. One thing missing in any Islamic country is hollyweird style liberals. I don't have any such problem though. In a choice between the buttbuddies in hollyweird and the nutcases like ISIS and Al Qaeda I have to pick the liberals. They're just disgusting while the Islamic nutjobs are an active threat. As far apart as the left and right may be in America we have far more in common with each other than with the Sharia lovers.

    3. Re:Confusion by dskoll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians

      Nonsense. I'm atheist and dislike all religions, though I confess I have a special hatred for Islam in particular, given the disgusting behavior of a small minority of its adherents and the silence and blame-deflecting of most of its adherents.

      Unfortunately, it's true that a lot of leftists cry about "Islamophobia" and that's too bad. Islam is a fascist ideology diametrically opposed to everything leftists say they hold dear, so I really can't understand how they can maintain the cognitive dissonance.

    4. Re:Confusion by kauaidiver · · Score: 0

      Bravo, as a liberal Christian I couldn't have said it better myself.

    5. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is more than 1% difference between right and left in USA?

      Are you really sure about that??

    6. Re:Confusion by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Informative

      The Left loves.....blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.

      Conservatives love blogging a lot.

      Bloviating is a human tradition that knows no political parties (a couple of those blogs look reasonably good, too).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republicans who want to ban evolution from schools, kill abortus doctors and who will never allow an atheist to become the President are closer to liberals than Sharia lovers? Give me a break...

    8. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really are confused by your Christian persecution syndrome. The "Left," aka normal rational people, are fine with both Christians and Muslims. They're not fine with either trying to set up a theocracy.

      Atheism is just one part of understanding that the supernatural is imaginary, which seems to send religious people off the deep end. It has nothing to do with your feelings of persecution.

    9. Re:Confusion by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The Left loves Islam

      Only in the sense that they think it's unfairly demonized.

      (atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians)

      Rather the only reason an atheist ever becomes visible is when they're resisting the influence of the pre-dominant religion of their culture.

      and they love blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.

      Which is somehow inferior to posting your useless opinion to troll people with different views?

      They must feel confused about who to cheer for in these murderous events.

      Nah, I think your opinions are the ones with a monopoly on confusion.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    10. Re:Confusion by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An interesting choice of word: "islamophobia", i.e. an irrational fear of Islam. Personally that belief leaves me with a mix of disdain and rational fear. Read the qur'an. Read what Islam's prominent and well respected scholars have to say about the right interpretation of its laws. Look at what is going on in every country where Islam is a mainstream religion. Listen to what so-called moderate preachers teach followers in western mosques. We should not fear, judge or condemn every muslim for their faith; like us, most of them are decent folk who just want to get on with their lives. But looking at it as a religious and political system, there's plenty to fear from Islam.

      Starting with fear of erosion of our freedoms. Here in Europe, it is no longer safe to criticize Islam; those who do need fear retribution from fanatics as well as legal prosecution. There's even talk of blasphemy laws, in national as well as the European parliaments.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    11. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it's true that a lot of leftists cry about "Islamophobia" and that's too bad. Islam is a fascist ideology diametrically opposed to everything leftists say they hold dear, so I really can't understand how they can maintain the cognitive dissonance.

      Leftists have the strange, even incomprehensible ability, to recognize that two people who both claim to be Muslim may be different, even radically different from each other, in often surprising ways.

      It's hard to explain. It's like they'd think that not all Christians, Atheists, or Blacks are exactly alike.

    12. Re:Confusion by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Republicans who want to ban evolution from schools, kill abortus doctors and who will never allow an atheist to become the President are closer to liberals than Sharia lovers? Give me a break...

      Right, because they are representative of "Republicans" enough for someone like you to say that's what that party is all about are just like people who vote Democrat, but who are espouse pure, confiscatory communism or burning down medical research facilities are representative of "Democrats" enough to say that's what that party is all about. Right? Right. Sure.

      The difference is that, unlike ISIS, there aren't tens of thousands of insane anti-vaccine lefties (or righties, whatever - they both exist) rounding up school nurses and lopping their heads off for YouTube videos. There aren't squads of militant atheists burning Unitarians (or Buddhists or anyone else) alive in cages in Ohio. There aren't fiscal conservatives planting IEDs along school bus routes to kill dozens of people at a time to show how upset they are that some school districts have officials who write contracts with corrupt public employee unions. There aren't "occupy" groups with enough gumption to do much more than be persistently annoying about the fact they want to shut down businesses of which they disapprove (as opposed to shooting RPGs into the windows of those office buildings).

      No, there's a huge, huge difference between they way people debate and go about resolving their differences in the US, than in places like much of the middle east. And the theocratic thugs who want to run the whole world in that model would be happy to kill you for disagreeing with them. See the difference? I think you're wrong, but I'd buy you a beer to talk about it. They'd kill you for having a beer because Allah doesn't like beer.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    13. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem hateful.

    14. Re: Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No US politician likes Muslims. They all are pro-Israel, both the Dems and Reps, even as Israel commits what is essentially aphartheid throughout the region.

    15. Re:Confusion by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'd like to think most Christians would loathe someone like you.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Confusion by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Get a grip idiot. The vast majority of Republicans don't support killing abortion doctors and a significant portion actually support abortion. That's like saying all Democrats think one guy marrying another guy is normal. As for not allowing an atheist to become President I'm pretty sure that's already happened more than once although President Obama may be a closet Muslim I strongly suspect he's his own God. Hell, the majority of women who got an abortion last year consider themselves to be Christians (combined Protestant and Catholic). Don't run around spouting false bullshit. Only the lunatic fringe of the left and right are really that different. Of course you sound like a lunatic.

    17. Re:Confusion by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      And it's the media that constantly pushes our differences and tries to incite rage and anger against one side or another. All in the name of ratings. There are a lot of things in society I don't like but I've never thought of going to pull a trigger on an abortion doctor or a gay rights advocate plugging gay marriage. That's the kind of thing that turns a society into a cluster fuck like Syria is today.

    18. Re:Confusion by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it's true that a lot of leftists cry about "Islamophobia" and that's too bad. Islam is a fascist ideology diametrically opposed to everything leftists say they hold dear, so I really can't understand how they can maintain the cognitive dissonance.

      There is nothing contradictory in defending someone when they're being attacked, and opposing them when they're doing the attacking.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:Confusion by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      You might not have, but there are the few that do and use their "holy book" to justify it.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    20. Re:Confusion by Barsteward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems like you are lumping all muslims into the "mad nutters of ISIS" category. the majority of muslims are just like the majority of christians and jews whose religion is Abrahamic based, just fine and reasonable. Even though anyone who believes in gods etc are deluded, they can still be reasonable human beings.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    21. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians

      Nonsense. I'm atheist and dislike all religions, though I confess I have a special hatred for Islam in particular, given the disgusting behavior of a small minority of its adherents and the silence and blame-deflecting of most of its adherents.

      Unfortunately, it's true that a lot of leftists cry about "Islamophobia" and that's too bad. Islam is a fascist ideology diametrically opposed to everything leftists say they hold dear, so I really can't understand how they can maintain the cognitive dissonance.

      Atheist is a Greek work. Atheism means NO GOD. All of your bullshit aside, it doesn't mean Agnostic(I DON'T KNOW), it means FUCK YOU CHRISTIANS/JEWS/WHATEVER. It's negates what you say you don't believe in- which is a logical flaw in and of itself. But Atheists are some of the dumbest fucks I've ever met, so it sense that you have no grasp of language, history, or critical thought.

    22. Re:Confusion by scsirob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, sorry, that no longer flies. The 'but there are so many good ones' argument is invalid.

      When a wacko Christian does something wrong and claims his faith, Christians stand up and condemn that person. Just a week ago a nutcase Jew stabbed people at random at the gay parade. His community condemned that act and explicitly mentioned that their own fate was to blame.

      No such thing happens with islam. Every day atrocities are committed in name of islam. There's a billion muslims out there who could stand up and show disgust for the atrocities. Doesn't happen. In fact, a disturbing number of young muslims agree with what IS does and are looking for ways to support or even join them. Until that big majority of silent muslims stand up and condemn their extremists, I lump them all together as followers of a very dangerous ideology that should be fought.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    23. Re:Confusion by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      You can consult the etymology of Atheism in any good English dictionary. The fact that you think it violates "language, history, or critical thought" really reflects poorly upon yourself... but you knew that which is why you post as coward.

    24. Re:Confusion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Informative

      An interesting choice of word: "islamophobia", i.e. an irrational fear of Islam. Personally that belief leaves me with a mix of disdain and rational fear. Read the qur'an. Read what Islam's prominent and well respected scholars have to say about the right interpretation of its laws. Look at what is going on in every country where Islam is a mainstream religion.

      The difference between christianity and islam in this regard is simply one of degree, not nature! The only reason Christianity isn't worse today is because of tireless efforts by those who would free you rather than enslaving you; Christianity was much worse than Islam, but it's lost most of its popularity. For some reason, Islam is still growing. I really don't have a theory as to why.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Confusion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Seems like you are lumping all muslims into the "mad nutters of ISIS" category. the majority of muslims are just like the majority of christians and jews whose religion is Abrahamic based, just fine and reasonable.

      You have a different definition of reasonable than I do. There's nothing reasonable about putting yourself on a pedestal because of your beliefs. It's not surprising, either, but it's not based on reason. It's based on emotion.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said all, I thought "The R that X" would obviously be a subset. Apparently not. The poster of the comment I replied to is the lunatic for your information, because he can't make the distinction which you make when it comes to muslims, even ISIS.

    27. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's it, just label someone you disagree with as "hateful". Why did you even open your mouth in the first place if you didn't want to be challenged?

    28. Re:Confusion by DarkMatterEDM · · Score: 1

      If the 'general population' weren't such fcuking sheeple - waiting on dysfunctional governments for justice -- perhaps, they would be equally ruthless in handing out swift justice like in the case of these uncivilized murderous Islamic fanatics. Heck, they are the majority - yet the sheeple just sit back and accept these endless acts of TERROR...often backed and financed by our allies. It's gotta be the fluroride and all the overpriced junk food that's creating spineless, compliant sheep all over the world. I weep for Humanity. Judgement day is coming soon, and then all Hell's gonna break loose. Now...who was it again that said "death to tyrants is obedience to god"??

    29. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference between attacking Muslims and attacking Islam. Islamophobia is a misnomer, as it's often used to refer to the former. There's nothing wrong with attacking or fearing Islam itself.

    30. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No such thing happens with islam. Every day atrocities are committed in name of islam. There's a billion muslims out there who could stand up and show disgust for the atrocities. Doesn't happen.

      Ever? Never ever? Not once?

      In fact, a disturbing number of young muslims agree with what IS does and are looking for ways to support or even join them.

      There are a disturbing number of young people of any number of faiths looking to engage in violence and oppression. Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever.

      Until that big majority of silent muslims stand up and condemn their extremists, I lump them all together as followers of a very dangerous ideology that should be fought.

      What do we do with you once we show that they have, and you've been deaf to their voices?

      Do you need hearing aids?

      http://abc7.com/news/local-muslim-leader-condemns-chattanooga-shooting/857712/

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/17/nashville-islamic-leaders-condemn-chattanooga-rampage/30293567/

      http://www.al.com/living/index.ssf/2015/07/huntsville_eid_2015.html

    31. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geezuz, could you be a bigger fu_king retard.

    32. Re:Confusion by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's the point ScentCone (795499) appeared to be making. There's a few - which is too many - but it's much better than a lot.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re:Confusion by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it's the lack of popularity that makes the difference. I suspect it's the absence of anything like the reformation.

      Had there been a Martin al-Luther or a John bin-Calvin things might have been different.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    34. Re:Confusion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I suspect it's the absence of anything like the reformation.

      The reformation is the only reason we still have christianity. Without that, they would have been hunted down like the jews.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Confusion by gijoel · · Score: 0

      If that we're true, then the media would have no hesitation labeling hate crime committed by white guys as terrorism. I see a lot of mass shootings shot up in the states by white nationalists, using Christian ideology to justify their actions against women, African Americans, and Jews.

    36. Re:Confusion by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The difference between christianity and islam in this regard is simply one of degree, not nature! The only reason Christianity isn't worse today is because of tireless efforts by those who would free you rather than enslaving you; Christianity was much worse than Islam, but it's lost most of its popularity

      It's not right to think of it in terms of "Islam" and "Christianity." The proper dichotomy to recognize is between "modern thought" and "medieval thought." The Middle East is stuck in an era where it's ok to kill your political enemies, where men are above women, where the value of freedom of speech has not been recognized.

      Christianity did all kinds of bad things, but now Europeans and Americans have largely recognized the value of rule of law, freedom of religion, etc. It's not about religion, it's about a region of the world that hasn't learned those things yet. When they do, they will be fine, even keeping their religion.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    37. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Atheists are some of the dumbest fucks I've ever met, so it sense that you have no grasp of language, history, or critical thought

      Really? That's what you want to end with? Have you seen the multitude of legions of "followers" and "faithful" over the history of mankind? Conservatively, it's like a 1:10k ratio.

    38. Re: Confusion by unixisc · · Score: 0

      Hah!!! Every US president since Bush has been virulently anti-Israel. James Baker was famous for his 'Fuck the Jews' statement, and he ran Bush 41's foreign policy. Bill Clinton put continuous pressure on Israel, and sent James Carville down there to defeat Netenyahu. Bush 43 was the president who recognized a Palestinian state, ignoring Israel's objections. Obama has been in bed w/ Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. Hilary was the candidate who first came up w/ the idea of recognizing a Pali state. On the GOP side, most of the candidates are in bed w/ Muzzies - Trump, Bush, Gramm, Perry, Fiorina, Christie,... The only ones who probably are not are Ted Cruz and Jindal. I had hopes about Scott Walker, until he put his foot in his mouth about the Arabs who want the US to play a bigger role there.

    39. Re:Confusion by unixisc · · Score: 1

      A phobia is an irrational fear. One can have a phobia of butterflies, but not wasps. Similarly, one can have a phobia of Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Shintos, or even Christians. One can't have a phobia of Muslims.

    40. Re:Confusion by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Seems like you are lumping all muslims into the "mad nutters of ISIS" category. the majority of muslims are just like the majority of christians and jews whose religion is Abrahamic based, just fine and reasonable. Even though anyone who believes in gods etc are deluded, they can still be reasonable human beings.

      There have been polls out by Pew on Muslims in a number of countries - both in the Islamic empire and the non-Islamic world. Most Muslims endorse Islamic supremacist views, and are supportive of Jihadi campaigns. What's even more revealing - even at a personal level, they are pretty hostile to the idea of their children marrying outside Islam. Which is a major reason why 90+% of all honor killings happen among Muslims.

      Also, some people do try to distinguish b/w Muslims and Islam, but it's a worthless distinction to make. The only reason we worry about Muzzies so much is that there are 1.8 billion of them. If there had been only as many Muslims as there are Jains, nobody would have sweated it so much. So Islam is the threat that it is b'cos 1/4 of the world's population adheres to it

    41. Re:Confusion by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I believe that the majority of Muslims are just like Christians in that they just want to live in peace and get along with their neighbors. Unfortunately while the Christian Bible states that if you don't believe you'll go to hell when you die it appears far too many of the radical muslims interpret their scripture to say "if they don't believe then kill them all and send them to hell." It's impossible to get along with those people but since they are Muslim then the non-crazy Muslims take their side when it comes to a shoot out with any non Muslim country. That's a bad thing because it's one thing to let God decide what's what in the afterlife and it's entirely another thing to decide it all for God here in this life. The later causes blood to flow and lots of innocents to die in the crossfire.

    42. Re:Confusion by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      By whom? Generally religions are hunted down by other religions.

      Atheists, by their very nature, are unlikely to partake in holy wars. Also, they were pretty rare in 1517.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    43. Re:Confusion by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You do realise that over here in Europe, we have *Christian Socialist* parties in a number of countries, don't you? Just thought I'd ask...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    44. Re:Confusion by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "There's a billion muslims out there who could stand up and show disgust for the atrocities. " - bear in mind these billions are generally subdued by various factions who enforce extreme sharia law so they are not going to put their head above the rafters like this blogger did. we have plenty of muslim leaders here in the Uk condemning these nutters.

      "When a wacko Christian does something wrong and claims his faith, Christians stand up and condemn that person. " westborough church is still running ... don;t see many christian organisations voicing support for personal freedom of choice with regards abortion and gay marriage...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    45. Re:Confusion by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "There's nothing reasonable about putting yourself on a pedestal because of your beliefs. " the ones that do that are the ones that fit into the unreasonable sector as far as i'm concerned, the majority tend to keep their head down and live and let live. Minorities are always louder and appear to be a bigger number than they really are.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    46. Re:Confusion by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Are you really going to get a reasonable poll of muslims who like under the yoke? Most of these muslims live under threat of being maimed or killed by the self-appointed or government sanctioned sharia police to keep them subdued so you are not going to get a truthful answer in case the pollsters are working for the government. Its like saying all germans were nazies because they were german.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    47. Re:Confusion by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You're a liberal Christian who dislikes all religions?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    48. Re:Confusion by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      in defending someone when they're being attacked

      This "islamophobia" thing attacks Islam. I didn't know that Islam qualified as "someone" instead of "something".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    49. Re:Confusion by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Several people are "a big majority" for you? Not to mention that opposing one specific act doesn't make them any less crazy. That craziness makes them have undesirable ideas on average. Nobody ever claimed that it makes them have undesirable ideas regarding every single issue.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    50. Re:Confusion by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "There's nothing reasonable about putting yourself on a pedestal because of your beliefs. " the ones that do that are the ones that fit into the unreasonable sector as far as i'm concerned, the majority tend to keep their head down and live and let live.

      No, their belief system tells them that they are better than other people, they get to go to heaven when people who don't believe what they believe are going to hell. That kind of unfounded discriminatory bullshit thinking leads to bullshit people making bullshit decisions. And remember, life in the western world is predicated upon the suffering of others. There's nothing "live and let live" about keeping your head down and living. It's live and let die.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re:Confusion by araxius · · Score: 1

      Please, stop talking so general, if you want to state something, base it on details. I was born in Iran, and although I'm not a muslim, I have a good knowledge of what Islam is, and what its supporters want, whether normal, moderate or extremist. Islam is not a religion that tends towards terrorism, in fact, there is no order to take lives in the whole Quran. There is only one condition that killing is allowed: when the other party is attacking your city, your people. This is literally Real Islam. What you see in extremist groups, is exactly what extremist groups of other religions and parties do, they forge their own interpretation, and talk about it like it is obvious. And the fact that terrorism has become so widely seen in muslim world, is because of the capital. The flow of capital, in an economy that is based on selling oil, and not production, leads to such actions. It is not like "he is producing something and getting wealth, I can do the same and be wealthy", it is like "he has the oil, he is reach, and he doesn't let me have it, so I should get it by force." and don't forget the constant humiliation the European countries and U.S. have towards muslims. Whatever they say, the overall view is similar to barbarian. It creates a lot of hate, anger. And the Europe and U.S. aren't that innocent in the crisis that we face in muslim world. They are a part of it, please study the history of Al-Qaida, ISIS, or any other terrorist group that you want, you can see how they have invested in it. Besides all of it, what you say about muslims being silent on what is being done in the name of Islam is simply not right. Come to Iran, ask anybody, I'm pretty sure that you can't even find a single person who thinks ISIS or Al-qaida people are muslims. NOT A SINGLE PERSON. And the same goes in most of the muslim world: What you are considering your test group is not a fair test group, it is selected from a subset that live in U.S. or Europe, and also the ones that are bold enough to express their radical thoughts.

    52. Re:Confusion by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Atheists, by their very nature, are unlikely to partake in holy wars.

      Until it's too late and we have no choice but to eliminate anyone who's religious, otherwise the human race will vanish from the Universe.

    53. Re:Confusion by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      No such thing happens with islam. Every day atrocities are committed in name of islam. There's a billion muslims out there who could stand up and show disgust for the atrocities. Doesn't happen.

      http://news.sky.com/story/1298...

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...

      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...

      http://www.yourlocalguardian.c...

      http://www.dailypost.co.uk/new...

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      Like fuck it doesn't happen. Get your head out of your ass.

    54. Re:Confusion by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Such a movement is unlikely, using pure reason alone, to convince enough people to join to give it any chance of success; "live and let live" is an appealing argument.

      It might might have an outside chance if it was branded properly - symbology, titles, legends, an us-vs-them narrative, funny clothes and maybe just a bit of hocus-pocus for good measure.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    55. Re:Confusion by unixisc · · Score: 1

      No, the polls in question included Muslims in Western countries - it was a worldwide poll. Plus they were anonymous even in the Muslim countries where the surveys were taken, so yes, I do expect them to state honestly whether they like the supremacist movements of their religion or not. There were a good percentage of people who approved of honor killings, believed that Jews are behind the world's problems, etc. So no, the majority of Muslims do not believe what we wish them to believe

    56. Re:Confusion by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So, what's Islam (or individual Muslims) going to do to me? I live in the US, and the risk of Islamist terrorism is far lower than other risks I disregard. I'm not afraid of them. I deplore what many Muslims are doing, and want them stopped, but I'm not in danger and I don't fear them.

      Now, if I lived in a Muslim country, I'd feel threatened, but I don't.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    57. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said Sir, well said :)

  4. Violence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another case of "how dare you call Muslims violent! We'll show you how violent Muslims can be!"

  5. Would a Code of Conduct help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone think that a Code of Conduct would help avoid situations like this?

    It has been noted that a code of conduct is an important tool for creating healthy and productive communities.

    1. Re:Would a Code of Conduct help? by DiehardIndependent · · Score: 1

      Does anyone think that a Code of Conduct would help avoid situations like this?

      LOL! It's a centuries old "Code of Conduct" that created situations like this.

  6. The west should rid itself of its dependence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever it is these countries make that we need, we should end our reliance on their exports and let these misguided ideologies implode. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.

    1. Re:The west should rid itself of its dependence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism will not allow this to happen, as the current form of energy that is cheapest and most convenient is fossil fuels. Therefore it is the preferred energy source and this is where capitalism gets into bed with the military, which it uses to secure access to these resources, thus creating the military-industrial complex. Until we can cast off the misguided ideology of greed and capitalism (which, by the way, the bible says is bad) we will never rid ourselves of the Islamist murderers, and honestly I would be pretty pissed off too if I were in their shoes. I just wouldn't murder people to show it.

    2. Re:The west should rid itself of its dependence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until we can cast off the misguided ideology of greed and capitalism (which, by the way, the bible says is bad) we will never rid ourselves of the Islamist murderers...

      The bible says Jesus wants us to love Islamist murderers. Weird, huh? Maybe we should all dial down the importance of our respective holy books in our daily lives.

    3. Re:The west should rid itself of its dependence by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Whatever it is these countries make that we need, we should end our reliance on their exports and let these misguided ideologies implode. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.

      There is nothing in Bangladesh that the West is dependent on. Yeah, you do sometimes see clothing that's 'Made in Bangladesh', but that's available from all sorts of countries - Honduras, Vietnam, Costa Rica, et al. So avoid buying anything made in Bangladesh, and buy something made in one of the other countries. Bangladesh ain't China, which you can't avoid buying from

  7. A rush to judgement by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

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

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

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:A rush to judgement by Carcass666 · · Score: 2

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

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

      And passage that has you concerned...

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

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

    2. Re:A rush to judgement by jma05 · · Score: 1

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

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

      It's law is not what is at fault. It is in part because of the general lawlessness that comes from being a poor country. Culturally, Bengalis are not a fundamentalist lot. For millinea, and only until a few centuries ago, the greater Bengal area was one of the most prosperous centers of civilization. It was left behind by industrial and colonial eras.

    3. Re:A rush to judgement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd much rather have the right to "slander" islam than to not have the right to slander any religion.
      I take it he means the british slander here, since there it's also slander even if it's true.

    4. Re:A rush to judgement by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

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

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

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

      Holocaust deniers, of course, are just dumb.

      In any case, it is hardly necessary to slander Mohammed, the child rapist. What's worse than raping children?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:A rush to judgement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    6. Re:A rush to judgement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

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

    7. Re:A rush to judgement by KGIII · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:A rush to judgement by unixisc · · Score: 1
      From Wiki

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

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

    9. Re:A rush to judgement by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

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

      It's still in line with the stupid idea of religious pluralism. Mahatma Gandhi adopted this stance too, but it was his mistake. In the end he was assassinated by Hindu religious fanatic for looking for compromise with Islam faithful. Learn from mistakes of world's great thinkers! Gandhi should have opposed religions as much as he opposed British colonialism. There is inherently no compromise between religions because existence of other religions will be always a source of butthurt for a particular religion. And they'll always try to weaken and suppress other religions. Thus religious pluralism isn't a path to lasting peace.

    10. Re:A rush to judgement by unixisc · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    11. Re:A rush to judgement by unixisc · · Score: 1

      And passage that has you concerned...

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

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

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

      Even though religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is non-existent, except for Sunni Muslims who accept the Hambali jurisprudence. While in India, religious freedom pretty much exists, and the only controversies are over the issue of whether converting someone else from religion A to B should be legal - which it isn't in a handful of states. But as far as religious freedom goes for BO, India is a lot more problematic than Saudi Arabia

    12. Re:A rush to judgement by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Gandhi was a dhimmi of the highest order. Appeasing Muslims was his #1 priority, just like it's both Bush & Obama's, and the reason he was assassinated was that he did everything he could to prevent Hindu backlashes against Muslims who were trying to massacre or drive Hindus completely out of Muslim areas in India, and insisting that India retain its Muzzies even if Hindus were completely expelled from Pakistan (which included Bangladesh at the time). Oh, and he advised Jews to march to the camps of the Nazis, and supported Muzzie claims in Palestine, opposing Israel.

      As for your view about banning all religions, nothing like Atheist Fanaticism to substitute religious ones. Point remains that in all countries - outside Muslim & Communist countries - it's perfectly legal to practice different religions, and churches, synagogues, temples, et al do little to nothing to subvert all that. Only one of them do, and just to avoid a head on confrontation w/ them, you have geniuses who draw moral equivalents and campaign to take on ALL of them head on. Not that that avoids any confrontation w/ the Muzzies.

    13. Re:A rush to judgement by loonycyborg · · Score: 1

      What a stupid strawman argument. It's irrelevant in this context what is legal and what isn't. It's the fact that people of different religion shun or kill each other depending on how close they think their religion is close to "winning". This makes religion definitely a negative social force. I don't advocate ban of religion though because it's not needed. Just prevent shunning and killing via dialogue and diplomacy and eventually humanity will become entirely irreligious. Nobody will join a religion unless some kook like Ron Hubbard tricks them. They won't stay in religion unless peer pressure and threat of loss of property would keep them in.

    14. Re:A rush to judgement by jma05 · · Score: 1

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

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

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

      Many western countries also have parties that campaign to make the respective countries Christian countries. Party lines do not have precedence over what the constitution says.

      Allowing to keep the state religion is a more valid point.

    15. Re:A rush to judgement by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam

    16. Re:A rush to judgement by david_thornley · · Score: 1

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

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

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    17. Re:A rush to judgement by jma05 · · Score: 1

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

      Passing judgment on cultures, on any single descriptor, especially without taking into account their economic stage of development, is in my view... naive. One cannot judge societies, by the standards of the modern era, when they have not had the opportunity of a modern education, by reasons of poverty.

      Additionally, Bangladesh was set back by more than a generation, when its intellectual class, of which it used to be proud of, was selectively butchered during its freedom struggle. These are complex matters that cannot be reduced to one word.

  8. This is a new George Carlin joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.52 !

  9. Tactical Nuke Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell every country, that if they allow ISIS members to remain free inside their borders that we will start dropping tactical nukes over their country until all the ISIS members are dead. Once all the countries have evicted the ISIS members, round them up and drop them off on the Bikini Atol, then execute one last nuclear test on their asses. Problem solved. Oh, and yes, obligatory 'nuke em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."

    1. Re:Tactical Nuke Time by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Of course this cowardly idiot calls for mass indiscriminate murder but lacks balls and has to do so anonymously. What's the difference between ISIS and those who have no apparent viable soul and would willing drop weapons of mass destruction on innocent men, women and children.

    2. Re:Tactical Nuke Time by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      to "messy" and its a waste of fissionables

      i do think we have enough conventional weapons to do the job

    3. Re:Tactical Nuke Time by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Are you advocating state-sponsored terrorism to fight terrorism? What, exactly, do you think that will really accomplish? I am no expert but I spent eight years enlisted and have made it a hobby to study military history. I can tell you, with some certainty, that that would not end up with the results you seem to think it will have. That will not reduce terrorism, violence, or deaths. That will almost assuredly increase those things. There is also the issue of moral high ground...

      I suppose this could have been said in jest. However, Poe's Law and Cole's Law...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  10. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  11. NUKE THEM ALREADY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just make the middle east into a giant fucking blast crater already. Only way to fix the region.

    1. Re:NUKE THEM ALREADY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to learn how to read a map.

    2. Re:NUKE THEM ALREADY by unixisc · · Score: 1

      What does reading a map have to do w/ it? The Middle East is contiguous, w/ the exception of Israel, so if nuked, they can cover enough Islamic areas. It would take a number of such nukes though to eviscerate places from Raqqa to Sana, and in Africa, from Cairo to Timbuktu. Thousands, probably

    3. Re:NUKE THEM ALREADY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Is "with" really that hard to type, moron?

    4. Re:NUKE THEM ALREADY by unixisc · · Score: 1

      GFY, @$$h01e

  12. Crimes in the name of Islam will only worsen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No way to reform this stupid death cult. Only way is to leave it and hope those still clinging to it don't kill you for it-- which is a real possibility for the majority of Muslims. A really unfortunate religion to be born under.. Worse, its the #1 religion promulgated in prisons-- as if violent felons need a religion that preaches violence.

  13. Does the govt have the will to stop this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the big question to me: if the govt is run by closet fundamentalists, or they are so weak militarily and/or politically that they do not feel they can rein in these radicals, of course the perps will never be brought to justice. Similarly to Pakistan..no will to fix the issues underlying.

    1. Re: Does the govt have the will to stop this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on the govern supports it all illega activitiea like this

  14. Why do you care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You morons still don't understand what Islam is. You morons therefore still won't lay the blame where it belongs, which is Islam. Climate Change, Obama not being a Muslim, You not being an Idiot, and plethora of other causes you'll completely embrace without a shred of Historical knowledge or present day knowledge- because you(atheists) are F'ing cowards at a systemic level- no matter the time, place, or Civilization you inhabit without making better..

    They're beheading Christians(The Founders of Western Civilization) and Kufar(Yezidi/Zoroastrians) by the mass graveload, and not a peep from you b|tches. But one of your own drops in the wilderness, and you suddenly take notice. Well, Fuck you. You fucking cowards.

  15. Seriously, take a look at this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.politicalislam.com/
    This guy who writes for this site doesn't even bother to look at it, as he's an internet n00b.
    But what he's written about Islam, and it's beliefs, it's something everyone should pay attention
    to. I don't know about you, but when there has been over 1400 years of one religion killing
    and enslaving anyone else who doesn't look at god the same way as you do, I'd think one
    would feel uncomfortable about having them around. But hey, shock surprise, the Jewish
    religion is exactly the same. They just don't go around killing everyone, like Muslims, but
    their religious texts say the same thing. Anyone who isn't a jew, is no more than an animal.
    Funny how we have 2 religious groups that hate each other so much, having so much in
    common...

  16. Most white idiots here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... think that non-whites are 'victims' - but ONLY the non-whites who have so far successfully INVADED white countries. They are apparently 'minorities', even though white people are now less than 12% of the world population, and falling every year, and aren't allowed to simply have OUR OWN COUNTRIES any more...

    Most white idiots here think that telling the truth about Islam (i.e. saying bad things about it), is a 'hate' crime.

    www.prophetofdoom.net

  17. He just got his H1B Visa too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darn it!

  18. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Bible is not much better, but it's less obvious that it is so. The point was that the Qur'an has an obvious readability issue because people read the same thing and one group use it to justify peace and another group use it to justify brutal killings.

  19. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you kidding me? Have you ever heard of the Inquisition? The Salem witch trials? The freaking Crusades?

  20. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    I like how you flip it around towards Christians like that's supposed mean something. Of course, what you say is as correct, as is what GP said. But to be clear, all this points towards the folly that all religions have; justifying murder/atrocities in the name of their fictional god.

  21. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

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

  22. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone might blame those on the period rather than the religion. Extremist Islam exists in 2015.

  23. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

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

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

    wait.......what?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  24. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) R.I.P. Microsoft Tech Support FTFA

    2) Your religion seems to be anti-Christian. It's not news how this turns out for you. Maybe Google search the Bible "screaming and gnashing of teeth".

    An AC modded up to 3-Insightful for an anti-Christian spew comment on an Indian blogger-death-by-machetes story?

    hehe.. the mainstream retardation is reaching even the technical-literate.

    [Calling ducks ducks is a good idea at all times.]

    Ok I will bite one time..

    Aren't they one bit open to the possibility that they got tricked into believing in a book full of made up stuff?

    Christians will not believe a damn thing false by definition. eg. open a 2 page hypothetical book. Page 1 says "you were born". Turn the page. Page 2 says "you will die". You don't know who wrote it, you just found it. You recognize these things to be true. (some people still won't agree) Do you disregard it when it's obviously true? What if one of them weren't true but the other was... would you discern and disregard only the false, or throw both pages out? (tip: they are true)

    Now take Scripture. Many pages, and you know who wrote it. You recognize these things to be true. Oh. No shit. Scripture also says you were born and it also says you will die. Go figure. A couple billion people on Earth get it even right now.

    Why doesn't this ring alarm bells in Christians' minds?

    Because Christians laugh at your alarm bells. Your world is weak as fuck without Christ. At the most you are maybe an intermittent Earth decoration or whatever.

    You got modded 3 Insightful, for literally not being able to handle the truth. Insightful, for not being able to handle the truth. Again, insightful... for not being able... to handle... the truth.

    Not everybody can understand.
    http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-13.htm
    http://biblehub.com/proverbs/31-6.htm
    http://biblehub.com/proverbs/1-7.htm
    http://biblehub.com/proverbs/9-10.htm
    http://biblehub.com/john/14-6.htm

    Seen Jon Jones' tattoo? Look for it.

    lmfao: I shit you not... captcha: martyrs

    God is. http://biblehub.com/ephesians/4-6.htm

    https://imgur.com/YJC75Ix

  25. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religions of every type are nothing more than a control mechanism used by the few to control the many. Somehow religion has been elevated to such a status that any criticism of religious belief is forbidden under the pain of death. Religions of every denomination have been used throughout history to justify the very worst of human behaviors. Religion has always been just one more way to introduce divisiveness into an already fractured humanity.

  26. Up with people! by flacco · · Score: 1

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

    Ignorant savages.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
  27. Another DeVry alumnus by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I take it he means the british slander here, since there it's also slander even if it's true.

    Wrong

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  28. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  29. The religion of peace strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say what you want, it's a bunch of barbarians butchering civilization.

  30. Re: Justifiable under CHRISTIANITY by kauaidiver · · Score: 0

    Violence in the name of Christianity is hard to define if going by the New Testament. The Quran goes in the opposite direction getting more violent as it progresses. The Old Testament has Deuteronomy and Leviticus which are pretty violent, but the New Testament has Jesus' teachings.

    Even if you don't believe in religions you can easily see the Bible "evolved" and we are left with the New Testament. The Quran's last marching orders are violent, if it stopped at "You have your religion and I have mine" we'd be much better off.

    But you can thank Quran abrogration Surah 2:106 for all this mess.