Third of Muslim Students Back Religious Killings

[Michael]

Americans wholeheartedly supported an attack on Iraq and Afghanistan, although neither country killed a single American in the US. NATO countries have sent troops to kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan as a sign of their solidarity with freedom of expression by imposing their value systems through force. These are the same countries that have gone through two world wars and a holocaust and have been exploiting the third world economy for profit. Clearly they all back religious killings.

I agree that the people in the USA have used the recent wars to their finical advantage. So? You're point? While I don't recall the Bible being touted out as a justification, I'm more than happy to entertain the notion that a biblical biased society that takes the OT seriously could be dumb enough to fall for some such bs.

OMG...... we agree after all!

Michael

 

[Michael]

Yes, thank you Sam, This needs to be said. Afghanis and Iraqis who are dying in these occupations are (by and large) innocents.

I agree - wow, two times in one day.

 

[S.A.M.]

I agree that the people in the USA have used the recent wars to their finical advantage. So? You're point? While I don't recall the Bible being touted out as a justification, I'm more than happy to entertain the notion that a biblical biased society that takes the OT seriously could be dumb enough to fall for some such bs.

OMG...... we agree after all!

Michael

Don't forget the atheist countries. They had to turn religious again, they were so unpalatable a proposition. What would American atheists do if the Chinese or Soviets came to relieve them of their backward religious society? You know, like NATO in Afghanistan?

 

[DiamondHearts]

Don't edit my statements.

 

[Michael]

Don't forget the atheist countries. They had to turn religious again, they were so unpalatable a proposition. What would American atheists do if the Chinese or Soviets came to relieve them of their backward religious society? You know, like NATO in Afghanistan?

I never said I wanted to live in an Atheist society. Where have I said that? Never.

I always say Communism was built on bull shit.

I think liberal minded SAM-like level of religous beleif is probably pretty good for a majority of citizens to get through the day. When I visit Japan I like to go to the temples and "ask the Gods for good luck" (frankly I ask for winning lotto ticket numbers .. but meh . In China I thought it too bad there were not such symbols of Ancient Chinese religion's. Sadly (and maybe scarily) the Xians there are working overtime to convert the Chinese to Xiantity. When I hear a 75 year old Chinese PhD in CHM telling his Atheist son to think about being Xian because it's good for him .. hmmmm that's a worry. If China becomes rich and powerfull and monotheistic - well, with a monotheistic USA, I wouldn't want to be an Muslim nation with resources in the future - then you will understand why it's better to pound THOU Shault NOT Kill in as hard as possible with NO outs.

 

[S.A.M.]

I never said I wanted to live in an Atheist society. Where have I said that? Never. .

Thats irrelevant, no one asked the Afghanis what they wanted. I asked what American atheists would DO if an atheist state that believed their society was backward came to liberate them from it. Would they support it? Or would they be insurgents fighting the honest to goodness liberators who were bombing them into freedom?

 

[Michael]

Thats irrelevant, no one asked the Afghanis what they wanted. I asked what American atheists would DO if an atheist state that believed their society was backward came to liberate them from it. Would they support it? Or would they be insurgents fighting the honest to goodness liberators who were bombing them into freedom?

Then we agree, there is no need to justify killing other humans (of course always in "defense" - like how Bush sold to the defensive of Americans freedom by bombing Iraq) in a religous book because , JUST LIKE ORGASMS people naturally do it. (at least if they are with me

BUT, once justifiable killing is in a religous book, well, guess what, people use it to justify killing. Big bloody surprise there.

 

[Michael]

The OP was asking "Why to a third of Muslim Students Back Religious Killings"

My thesis is because justifiable killing is in their religous book therefor they back "religous killings". If it was not in their book they'd probably just back "defensive Killings". See the difference?

 

[S.A.M.]

So what would American atheists do? Would they, like Afghanis resist a liberation? Or would they like the puppet governments, support them? What would they consider as justified? Seeing as they have no religious book to tell them what to do? What would be their course of action? How would they view those who supported the liberators? What would be the logical course of action?

 

[KennyJC]

Don't forget the atheist countries. They had to turn religious again, they were so unpalatable a proposition. What would American atheists do if the Chinese or Soviets came to relieve them of their backward religious society? You know, like NATO in Afghanistan?

I'm holding out for European secularism.. or better still, Scandinavian secularism.

I don't know why you think atheists would like a totalitarian rule.

 

[Michael]

So what would American atheists do? Would they, like Afghanis resist a liberation? Or would they like the puppet governments, support them? What would they consider as justified? Seeing as they have no religious book to tell them what to do? What would be their course of action? How would they view those who supported the liberators? What would be the logical course of action?

What are you talking about - these are British students, as far as I know Briton isn't under attack.

Is it?

One should suspect that Muslims British Students would be of the same mind set as other British Students. Which may, and indeed probably is, anti-war. That's a hell of a lot different than being pro-killing. I doubt you'd find all that many British Students that are pro-killing in the name of stopping war. They'd probably go for the Civil approach. You know, like voting in a new leader who promises to end the war, that sort of thing. Murder would probably be a serious last resort.

 

[Michael]

I wonder if British Buddhists Back Religious Killings??? Surely they like to see the blood run from a headless Myanmarese General?

I suppose they live in an airy fairy world of idealism, I mean heh, just look at Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore pffff they obviously have no clue .... .... the poor backwards bastards. Tisk Tisk... surely if only they'd see the light of the Qur'an and instill Sharia Law and come to the deeply enlightened principal that in some cases it's a very very good thing, even Goldy, to murder fellow humans, only then will their pathetic lives turn around for the better. Poor F*ckers..

:bugeye:

 

[Michael]

I asked what American atheists would DO if an atheist state that believed their society was backward came to liberate them from it. Would they support it? Or would they be insurgents fighting the honest to goodness liberators who were bombing them into freedom?

I think that they would fight, regardless. Which is why there is no need to justify it in a religous beleif. Like sex, defending oneself (including to the point of killing) is a trait we inherit from our DNA.

 

[(Q)]

If someone comes to your house and kills an innocent family member, then I say killing in self-defense is justified. This is what Islam teaches. If you want to argue then get your facts straight.

A religion that "teaches" people to kill for revenge, which is very different from self-defense, is deplorable, vile and extremely dangerous. Of course, there is mountains of evidence to support the acts of Muslims who take it upon themselves to use this teaching for their own agendas that have nothing to do with self-defense and everything to do with revenge, bigotry, racism and plain old ignorance and stupidity.

Islam is the epitome of a violent cult. To teach that killing people is justifiable is not peaceful by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Don't be foolish. Islam gives the RIGHT of anyone whose rights are tramped to get revenge against the perpetrators of these crimes (all the governments in the world teach this to best of my knowledge), but it also teaches that forgiveness is BETTER.

There's nothing in our book, the Quran -- you call it "Ko-ran" -- that teaches us to suffer peacefully. Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery. That's a good religion. In fact, that's that old-time religion. That's the one that Ma and Pa used to talk about: an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and a head for a head, and a life for a life: That's a good religion. And doesn't nobody resent that kind of religion being taught but a wolf, who intends to make you his meal.

 

[codanblad]

That may be true of Iraq but is in principle false about Afghanistan. The Taliban would not cooperate with the US to capture Osama Bin Laden. This made the country complicit in 9/11 and fair game to go to war with.

are you serious? if australia liked bin laden would you come carpet bomb our country too? 'oh yeah, aussies like bin laden, so they're fair game now.'

pretend you're an afghani, some country you hate starts telling you what to do, so you tell it to fuck off, and they bomb you.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Americans find it very hard to understand this situation. The Afghanis are not predisposed to support the Taliban but it is because the US used the absolute worst people of Afghanistan (Karzai, Northern Alliance, and list of warlords) who have murdered, stolen, and raped countless Afghans, along with the the same from foreign American occupation troops and constant bombing of heavily populated civilian areas (including hospitals, mosques, and schools). What breeds anger is the death of their civilians, once the death stops, all these resistance fighters will have no one to resist.

 

[KennyJC]

are you serious? if australia liked bin laden would you come carpet bomb our country too? 'oh yeah, aussies like bin laden, so they're fair game now.'

pretend you're an afghani, some country you hate starts telling you what to do, so you tell it to fuck off, and they bomb you.

How irrelevant. A country like Australia wouldn't try to defend Osama from justice if he was living in their territory.

If they did, then yes, they should face the consequences.

 

[S.A.M.]

How irrelevant. A country like Australia wouldn't try to defend Osama from justice if he was living in their territory.

If they did, then yes, they should face the consequences.

. The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor after the United States lost the argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, and refused to participate. It later blocked enforcement making attempts at obtaining compliance futile.[2]

The court found in its legal verdict that the US was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State," "not to intervene in its affairs," "not to violate its sovereignty," "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce," and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."

The court had 16 final decisions which it voted upon. In Statement 9, the court stated that the US encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas.

What consequences do you suggest they face? Could the Nicaraguans bomb Americans for seven years in exchange for their support of terrorist acts?

 

[Mr.Spock]

This Religion of Peace Moment is brought to you by Muslims attending British universities: Third of Muslim students back killings.

what? really?! no!