Aaaaaand scene!
Your feeble attempt at a false dichotomy doesn’t come within a country mile of making the case that Avijit Roy was not in fact murdered for his actions.
Roy was not just an atheist in his private life but a widely-known public intellectual, an activist and anti-censorship advocate who wrote articles and books on controversial aspects of politics and religion. All of which actions are perfectly legal, just like the actions of the licensed medical professionals who provide abortions. But in both cases, sometimes fanatics get mad enough about other people’s legal actions to kill in retaliation for them.
Trying to pretend that maintaining an active career of publicly pursuing controversial legal activities in accordance with one’s own principles is a matter of “action” for abortion providers but merely “belief” for atheists is one of the dumbest arguments I’ve ever encountered.
(And, of course, that’s not even taking into account the moral bankruptcy of your unpleasant implication that it somehow counts as less heinous to brutally murder a law-abiding person for their lawful activities than for their personal beliefs.)
“Nuance” is pretty much the last thing anybody would have to fear from your posts.
And how does that make it any better?
“Short of walking into a conversation, sandblasting the brick and installing track lighting, there is no surer way to announce one is from the 1980s than to mount an assault on ‘political correctness,’ the contemporary phrase for which is ‘not being a jackass.’”
It is indeed very strange ‘argument’ to make. It insults Roy.
I think we can see your claimsof brotherly feeling and excuses about using the Anglophone slur Paki were just excuses.
It is strange, how is it that women in a political or similar discussion do not usually write “I used to have a boyfriend like you” but so many men think this sort of comment is acceptable. Even here which likes to criticize my culture about machisme.
the existence of radicalism and the existence of the political islam, which are not the same thing, these are complicated issues. They will exist no matter I think of conditions. there are the similar fringes in all modern societies.
what I think is the real question is why is this the serious problem of today.
There I have already pointed to a factor, that is the bad performance of the ostensible secular states and the secularist governments in the post-colonization, in the arab region. They were and are mostly the authoritarian governments, often heavily subsidized by one side or the other of the cold war, and performed badly on most accounts. It is important to recall and something that ignorants like the op ignore, thus getting their entire understanding of the history wrong. false premises to false conclusions
there is also the usage by some of these governments of playing the Islamist radical movements in the 1970s and 1980s when they seemed small against the then more powerful - then - communist movements, some governments thinking the small movements were less threat and too fringe.
this is more complicated than what is evoked by Measure, for merely not having press freedom did not promote inside of mosques the Ikhouan or the radicals. Nor can you say that it was just the Saudi money supporting the extreme Salafist vision. This only has worked and found roots because of the wider frustration.
Secular rule performed badly in the 1970-2000 period in most arab countries, so some people dismiss it entirely.
But you can see with the Tunisia that under stable circumstances, without the great manipulation like Egypt and with compromise, both the secularist and the centrist islamist parties can achieve a common project - and the overwhelming mass of the voters of this arab islamic country rejected the takfiri salafiste vision.
But europe already taught balanced and liberal democracy is a plant that takes time to put down its roots, and does not do well in its young stages in the face of crisis.
At least pro-lifers are stopping what they believe to be murder. And it is murder, in some small number of cases, like with that Dr. Kermit who “ensured fetal demise” with scissors to the cervical spine. Ugh.
I’m certainly no pro-lifer, but at some point, say, 25 weeks or so, abortion should be flat-out illegal, unless it’s to save the mother’s or fetus’s life.
Sorry, wrong thread.
Ah what a wonderful standard…
and I think we see a certain hidden agenda, caché
So this poster is ready to make excuses for terror actions where he believes that oh well at there is a rationale he justifies…
How typical, this is the side expression of the banality of evil
I am actually consistently pro-life, and vote that way. It’s sad to see people damaging their knee joints so much. Why not work your brain instead of your knee sometimes? LOL
I can report that I was once the victim of what probably counts as a hate crime. A group of evangelical buddies started taunting me one evening for being a ‘liberal’. I asked them what that meant and what I had done to deserve the label- basically I was demanding to know what I was being accused of. These evangelicals were so fucking stupid they couldn’t answer the question, and instead went apeshit and attacked me in what I consider a potentially fatal way. I had to get a lot of stitches on my head, and I was abandoned to get help on my own.
There was a large evangelical population in the place, so maybe that is why nobody was ever held accountable for the attack, I don’t know for sure. But personally, since this country is full of evangelicals and not especially populated by Muslims, I consider evangelicals to be a far greater threat. Not primarily as a physical threat, but mainly for the stupid direction they want to take government policy. But that is getting off topic…
Keep in mind that Truthseeker refers to Muslims as “Pakis” and doing so was determined to not be an example of “hate speech” or even worthy of a mod note.
Islamists hack another blogger to death in Bangladesh
RoP (religion of peace), the cancer of 21st century, strikes again.
^
:
:
Ah, another perfect opportunity to reflect on the injustice of the Crusades.
Traditionally and historically, the people of Bengal—including Hindus and Muslims, East Bengalis and West Bengalis, Bengalis of India and Bengalis of Bangladesh—were Bengalis first and whatever else second.
Traditionally, Bengali Muslim women did not have to cover their heads or their faces—they dressed just like Bengali Hindu women. Ever since independence, the Saudis have been spreading their radical form of Islam throughout the Muslim world, radicalizing places like Bangladesh.
Agree. Bangladesh is probably one of the more secular Muslim majority nations but looks like deteriorating. Partition did happen on communal lines though.
east Bengali muslim peasant’s view of the urban hindu was the money lender,zamindar. Many Muslims were not nationalists. There was mobilization on communal lines in the lead up to partition. there was the killings in Calcutta and noakhali after direct action day.
What is Ikhouan? Google is no help.
We had a thread about this, as you presumably recall. At the time I was upset and agreed with you but in hindsight I can’t get that het up about it when it’s only used as a derogatory term in one part of the world (a part where truthseeker isn’t.) Of course, he uses plenty of other inflammatory language about Muslims.
Anytime if I may have generalized by mistake, I am deeply sorry abt that. Majority of Muslims may well be fine, but 99% of extremists also happen to be followers. Even the non-extremists followers are far far less tolerant on average than kaffirs.
In 21st century world, RoP is the symbol of terrorism, regressive mindset, riots, divisiveness, partition, gender inequality etc. No two ways about it.