The Situation in Pakistan

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Believe whatever you want to... belief is not evil.

I agree with the first half, and dissagree with the second. One can and SHOULD be able to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be judged whether it is a good idea or bad one. And if its good, its good, if mad, then bad (evil).

[musashi]

So, you are saying that if you march over to a mosque and perform an action known to be offensive, deliberately to draw a reaction, you should be surprised at the reaction?

I think that's a pretty poor test and that many groups would react in a similarly negative manner if one were to mock their beliefs in chalk on their sidewalk.

Yes this is what I am saying.

They believe IF I do not believe in their religion then their religious duty should be to kill me. I think that is a bad deal for me.

Obviously, their other rules are far more trivial (and idiotic). But why in the heck should I be constrained by their rules at all?

• I made the drawing in a public place. Do they own the sidewalk?
  Was my crime a permanent insult – no it was in chalk.
  Did my drawing inflict physical harm? No, but I bet they would cross the line.

To me it seems like Muslims play by their own rules, and non-Muslims don't count.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Sophid: I don't really get your point here. I agree with what you are saying, but I don't get what you are after here.

[Kaimera Feran]

Sophid: I don't really get your point here. I agree with what you are saying, but I don't get what you are after here.

He's trying to say that if you go and pick up a rattlesnake by the tail, you should not persecute all snakes as evil because you got bit. Muslims think that it is a horrible thing to re-create an image of Muhammed. If I went outside a Roman Catholic church and burned a cross on the sidewalk I should not be shocked and amazed if a mob comes and confronts me in a violent fashion.

[Sophid]

So, you are saying that if you march over to a mosque and perform an action known to be offensive, deliberately to draw a reaction, you should be surprised at the reaction?

I think that's a pretty poor test and that many groups would react in a similarly negative manner if one were to mock their beliefs in chalk on their sidewalk.

Yes this is what I am saying.

They believe IF I do not believe in their religion then their religious duty should be to kill me. I think that is a bad deal for me.

Obviously, their other rules are far more trivial (and idiotic). But why in the heck should I be constrained by their rules at all?

• I made the drawing in a public place. Do they own the sidewalk?
  Was my crime a permanent insult – no it was in chalk.
  Did my drawing inflict physical harm? No, but I bet they would cross the line.

To me it seems like Muslims play by their own rules.

If you write blasphemous stuff on their sidewalk, they are not killing you because you do not believe, they are killing you because you are pretty much asking them to. While chalk may not warrant a beating to the death, keep in mind that the united states has laws against hate crimes and that religions are a protected class under that statute. If you were to write 'allah sucks,' in chalk on in front of a mosque and were caught doing it, you could expect to be arrested at the very least for disturbing the peace, and may be charged with a hate crime.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

If I went outside a Roman Catholic church and burned a cross on the sidewalk I should not be shocked and amazed if a mob comes and confronts me in a violent fashion.

I agree with this statement, but are you saying that violent people should be punished?

Also, is the cross burning breaking someone's rights?

[Kaimera Feran]

If I went outside a Roman Catholic church and burned a cross on the sidewalk I should not be shocked and amazed if a mob comes and confronts me in a violent fashion.

I agree with this statement, but are you saying that violent people should be punished?

Also, is the cross burning breaking someone's rights?

I'm not saying that violence is acceptable. Just that it is possible to cause a violent response in groups other than just Muslims by doing something offensive.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Do you believe in free will?

[Kaimera Feran]

Do you believe in free will?

Yes, I believe in free will. This does not make me or anyone else immune from having passion override that free will in certain circumstances.

[musashi]

If you write blasphemous stuff on their sidewalk, they are not killing you because you do not believe, they are killing you because you are pretty much asking them to. While chalk may not warrant a beating to the death, keep in mind that the United States has laws against hate crimes and that religions are a protected class under that statute. If you were to write 'allah sucks,' in chalk on in front of a mosque and were caught doing it, you could expect to be arrested at the very least for disturbing the peace, and may be charged with a hate crime.

May be I didn’t make my point clearly enough. Muslims will kill you for any number of “Hate Crimes” (I love that phrase).

I’ve got no problem respecting religious custom. The fundamental problem is that The Qur’an says to kill the unbeliever. At this highest level I think we must depart from “respecting their religious customs”.

And then as we devolve into the religious customs themselves, I think each should be carefully considered…

• Is it wrong for everybody in the whole world to name their stuffed animal “Mohammed” or “Allah”? Is that a hate crime? What about my pet pig or my dog?
  
  Is it wrong for a single woman to walk in public without a male family member as an escort in the entire world?

Shiara law is absolutely freaky, and Islamists insist upon strict adherence for all people (regardless of faith). I think that is wrong.

[Sophid]

"The fundamental problem is that The Qur’an says to kill the unbeliever."

Check out Kaimera's post earlier...

"22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

From the bible. The fundamental problem is that many, many religions and cultures preach violence, and you are focusing on just one.

[Arakasi Takeda]

Believe whatever you want to... belief is not evil.

I agree with the first half, and dissagree with the second. One can and SHOULD be able to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be judged whether it is a good idea or bad one. And if its good, its good, if mad, then bad (evil).

Maybe there's another one of Oleksandr's references from Rand coming, but I view it this way -

Morality is assigned to actions, not ideas. Rights are a matter of freedom of action, not the thing themselves. So, if I _act_ in a manner consistant with the Right of Life, then I am moral.

Simply having an idea, a concept, of something like Communism isn't evil. It's acting upon that idea, in a way that violates another's Right to Live, that brands the _action_ immoral.

[Edited for an additonal statement after re-reading some more of the thread]

Addendum - I suppose I shall have to look up the Peikoff vs. Kelley debate now.

AT

[musashi]

The fundamental problem is that many, many religions and cultures preach violence, and you are focusing on just one.

Yep you are right. And historically these other religions have “literally” followed the word of God. Executing crusades and pogroms. Religion has forced exodus and oppression. The murderous zeal is one of the reasons I do not practice most religions.

Thankfully it appears that most religions have found ways to revise their religious texts, but the Koran stands unaltered. If Baptists were as fervently zealous as the Islamic crowd is today, I would be calling them to task as well.

See there are only a handful of religions today that still preach hate towards the unbeliever. So while that other stuff happened in the past. The Islamic threat is genuine today.

BTW the thread is about Pakistan - a Muslim country. If you want to consider another religion, we need to consider another country.

[Kaimera Feran]

So I think it's a real shame about what happened to Bhutto... they keep changing the story about how she died, so I do not really know what happened yet. Al Qaeda, however, has claimed credit for it. Do you guys think that is creditable? Or do you think it was really the Musharraf administration and Al Qaeda is just trying to get attention?

[musashi]

So I think it's a real shame about what happened to Bhutto... they keep changing the story about how she died, so I do not really know what happened yet. Al Qaeda, however, has claimed credit for it. Do you guys think that is creditable? Or do you think it was really the Musharraf administration and Al Qaeda is just trying to get attention?

I'm with you, I have no clue. But I believe they are truthfully reporting that she is dead and buried.

I rarely feel like the reports from that part of the world are thorough. The confusion just adds to the suspense about their nuclear stockpile (obtained in defiance of the NPT, just like India and North Korea.)

[Kaimera Feran]

So I think it's a real shame about what happened to Bhutto... they keep changing the story about how she died, so I do not really know what happened yet. Al Qaeda, however, has claimed credit for it. Do you guys think that is creditable? Or do you think it was really the Musharraf administration and Al Qaeda is just trying to get attention?

I'm with you, I have no clue. But I believe they are truthfully reporting that she is dead and buried.

I rarely feel like the reports from that part of the world are thorough. The confusion just adds to the suspense about their nuclear stockpile (obtained in defiance of the NPT, just like India and North Korea.)

I'll tell you... nothing scares me more than the fact that India and Pakistan both have nukes and have a history of conflict which escalates into open war.

[Sophid]

I'll tell you... nothing scares me more than the fact that India and Pakistan both have nukes and have a history of conflict which escalates into open war.

And a civil war in a nuclear armed country scares me even more.

[Oleksandr]

Maybe there's another one of Oleksandr's references from Rand coming, but I view it this way ...

AT

Hehe, damn right.

Just to spark some interesting in the article that describes it:

In the objective approach, since every fact bears on the choice to live, every truth necessarily entails a value-judgment, and every value-judgment necessarily presupposes a truth. As Ayn Rand states the point in "The Objectivist Ethics": "Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a living consciousness, every 'is' implies an 'ought.'" Evaluation, accordingly, is not a compartmentalized function applicable only to some aspects of man's life or of reality; if one chooses to live and to be objective, a process of evaluation is coextensive with and implicit in every act of cognition.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... ctivism_fv

[Oleksandr]

Just to be clear.

I think all religions lead to use of force. It's an inevitable logical conclusion of anything based on faith.

However, I do place extra effort on the most violent ones. (i.e. Islam)

I also saw in some news recently, that some analytics claim Iran will have nuclear power in 3 months. Imagine when they do.

[musashi]

Ultimately some towel-headed kook with a nine-year-old bride named Aisha gets the keys to the nukes

Muslim is a bad violent religion, that's the cause of terrorism today. That's just stating a fact.
I suppose Aisha is a Japanese name. So it comes from a matter of Japanese prise, proudly spoken for entire culture in 1940s who had no problems with suicide and killing millions in China. Now, I suppose you mean using 'Aisha' as Japanese name is racist. But then I don't see what is racist about that: it's not the same as saying that all Japanese would drop the nukes on USA..

Actually Aisha was one of the 11 to 13 wives of Muhammad (PBUH). Aisha was the five-year-old bride, where the marriage was consummated after her ninth birthday.

If my comments have offended please except my apologies. I intended them to be humorous. I am bigoted and racist. I believe it is impossible for any person to be unbigoted or non-racist. So, in imitation of many comedians, I look past the obvious and go for the pedestrian laugh were I can.

I try my best not to directly insult specific individuals. Sometimes I do not achieve my aims.

And of course everybody knows that Muslims don’t wear towels on their heads, they wear skullcaps. The wearing of the towel is a Vedic tradition, but it is often associated with Arab culture.

Mohammed wore thick glasses and a turban and stroked a bushy gray beard, in stark contrast to the disheveled hair, unshaven face and T-shirt he wore when he was captured in Pakistan in 2003.

Appearing calm as he propped his glasses on his turban to peer at legal papers, Mohammed also grinned and exchanged a few words with someone at the defense table occupied by Waleed bin Attash, who allegedly selected and trained some of the 19 hijackers who turned airplanes into missiles in the attacks.

And now one of the active leaders of the Muslim world (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) has to go and prove me wrong during his tribunal. I guess Muslims really do wear towels on their heads as well.

[musashi]

More evidence of the peaceful intent of Islam. Draw a cartoon and die.

COPENHAGEN – An ax-wielding Somali man with suspected al-Qaida links was charged Saturday with two counts of attempted murder after breaking into the home of a Danish artist whose Prophet Muhammad cartoon outraged the Muslim world three years ago.

The suspect, who was shot twice by a police officer responding to the scene, was rolled into a Danish court on a stretcher, his face covered. He was ordered held for four weeks on preliminary charges of attempting to murder the cartoonist, as well as the police officer who shot him.

Efforts to protect the artist — 74-year-old Kurt Westergaard — were immediately stepped up, as he was moved to an undisclosed location.

The suspect, described by authorities as a 28-year-old Somali with ties to al-Qaida, allegedly broke into the house late Friday armed with an ax and a knife. The house is in Aarhus, Denmark's second largest city, 125 miles (200 kilometers) northwest of Copenhagen.

Jakob Scharf, head of Denmark's PET intelligence agency, said Saturday the man might have attacked spontaneously.

"It seems that he acted alone, and maybe it was a sudden decision," Scharf told Danish broadcaster TV2. He was not immediately available for further comment.

Westergaard, who has been the target of several death threats since depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, has been under round-the-clock protection by Danish police since February 2008.

When he heard someone trying to break into his home, he pressed an alarm and fled to a specially made safe room. His five-year-old granddaughter was also in the house at the time.

Officers arrived two minutes later and tried to arrest the assailant. He threatened the officers with the ax, and one officer then shot him in the hand and knee, Preben Nielsen of the Aarhus police said.

Nielsen said the man's wounds were serious but not life-threatening.

Westergaard could not be reached for comment, but he told his employer — the Jyllands-Posten newspaper — that the assailant shouted "Revenge!" and "Blood!" as he tried to enter the bathroom where Westergaard had sought shelter.

"It was scary. It was close — really close," he said, according to the newspaper's Web site.

The Somali man, whose name cannot be released because of a court order, was accompanied by a lawyer. He arrived at the court in Aarhus from the hospital where he is being treated, and denied the charges.

"He will be in custody for four weeks, and in isolation for two (of those)," said Chief Superintendent Ole Madsen in Aarhus. He said the suspect would be moved to a prison in Aarhus, which has medical facilities.

Defense lawyer Niels Christian Strauss told reporters outside the court he had urged his client to remain silent to allow more time to examine the evidence.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen called the attack "despicable."

"This is not only an attack on Kurt Westergaard but also an attack on our open society and our democracy," he said in a statement.

In 2005, Jyllands-Posten had asked Danish cartoonists to draw Muhammad as a challenge to a perceived self-censorship. Westergaard and 11 other artists did so. Danish and other Western embassies in several Muslim countries were torched in early 2006 by angry protesters who felt the cartoons had profoundly insulted Islam.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

Westergaard remains a potential target for extremists nearly five years later: His cartoon is viewed as the most provocative, and he is the only of the twelve cartoonists to live under round-the-clock protection.

Authorities declined comment on whether security for other cartoonists had been tightened.

The Somali man had won an asylum case and received a residency permit to stay in Denmark, Scharf said. He called the Friday attack terror-related.

"The arrested man has, according to PET's information, close relations to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabab and al-Qaida leaders in eastern Africa," Scharf said. "(The attack) again confirms the terror threat that is directed at Denmark and against the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in particular."

Scharf said the man is suspected of having been involved in terror-related activities in east Africa and had been under PET's surveillance, but not in connection with Westergaard.

In Somalia, Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage, a spokesman for the Somali group al-Shabab, denied the man was member of the group, but supported his alleged attack on the cartoonist.

"We welcome the brave action he did," Rage said. "It was a good and brave step taken by that Somali man against the criminal cartoonist — we liked it."

He described Westergaard as "the devil who abused our Prophet Muhammad" and called on "all Somalis in Denmark and around the world to target him and the people like him, too."

Westergaard has received previous death threats and was the subject of an alleged assassination plot.

In October, terrorism charges were brought against two Chicago men who allegedly planned to kill him and newspaper's former cultural editor. That trial has not yet begun.

In 2008, Danish police arrested two Tunisian men suspected of plotting to kill Westergaard. Police failed to substantiate the charges and neither suspect was prosecuted. One was deported and the other was released Monday after an immigration board rejected PET's efforts to expel him from Denmark.

Throughout the crisis three years ago, then-Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen distanced himself from the cartoons but resisted calls to apologize for them, citing freedom of speech and saying his government could not be held responsible for the actions of Denmark's press.

An umbrella organization for moderate Muslims in Denmark condemned the Friday attack.

"The Danish Muslim Union strongly distances itself from the attack and any kind of extremism that leads to such acts," the group said in a statement.

[Oleksandr]

And now one of the active leaders of the Muslim world (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) has to go and prove me wrong during his tribunal. I guess Muslims really do wear towels on their heads as well.

Lol. Nice.

[Torrstar]

While I agree that Islam seems to have a greater proportion of radicals pent on killing others, many faiths have extremists in their midst yet I don't think its quite fair to paint all believers with the same brush.

I'm a Christian and of course, there is much evil in its history and even in the faith today. Doesn't mean we are all like that, in fact, most of the ones I've met and known are a pretty benign and peaceful bunch.

But the real question issue isn't whether or not extremism exists in Islam or elsewhere today, but what steps can be taken to minimize or reduce the risk when the crazies come to call. (The holiday plane bombing incident sort of prompts my thoughts on this, as I had a family up in the air right before it happened.)

[musashi]

I'm a Christian and of course, there is much evil in its history and even in the faith today. Doesn't mean we are all like that, in fact, most of the ones I've met and known are a pretty benign and peaceful bunch.

Have you done the “Cartoon litmus test” with these folks? Draw a stick figure sodomizing another child stick figure and write Mohammed (PBUH) giving Aisha some lovin’ under the drawing. See if the most benign of the group of Muhammadins doesn’t just go APE S##T. This is a quick and easy way to make an enemy for life.

Or try sitting on a copy of the blessed Quran, they don’t like that much either.

You’re right very few religions can claim a history free of murderous zeal - this one just happens to be hot and happening right now. The people you interact with may appear benign and peaceful. The religious doctrine compels them to be far more malicious. Just about any adherent Muslim can be provoked into hostility and irrationality, the word of God commands it.

The simple truth of the situation is hegemony. Islam is driven the take over the world and bring us living or dead to the promised land of 700 AD. Oh wait I can’t use AD anymore, quick where did I file my Islamic calendar?

[Oleksandr]

Yep, there have been a few good movie documentaries as well. The recent one is http://www.thethirdjihad.com/12min.php

Where you can see the clips of those freaks explain themselves. Their goals have nothing to do with oil, land, etc - their goal is the rule of Sharia law over the entire world, include "Moscow and France."