[Plantagenet]

One of the Pakistan Taliban groups has claimed responsibility for the bombing targeting the playground used by Christian children in Lahore.

bbc.com

I'm becoming less and less impressed with Islam and its more devout Islamist advocates every day.

[Timo]

I'm becoming less and less impressed with Christianity and its more devout Fundamentalist advocates every day.

We dismiss every follower of any particular faith, and the fundamental values of any particular faith based solely on the actions of a few people of that faith.

Perfectly rational. Perfectly logical.

Perfectly judgmental.

[onlooker]

Yes and I am been having ongoing arguments with some on this site for like 1 year that the great majority of Muslims are not violent extremists. Falls on deaf ears.

[sidzepp]

BBC again focused on Brussels and scant mention of Lahore. An attack anywhere in the world, no matter the creed, is sill terrorism!

[onlooker]

BBC again focused on Brussels and scant mention of Lahore. An attack anywhere in the world, no matter the creed, is sill terrorism!

Of course not Western media is more interested in depicting attacks on western enclaves not other different places.

[dolanbaker]

BBC again focused on Brussels and scant mention of Lahore. An attack anywhere in the world, no matter the creed, is sill terrorism!

It's the lead story! http://www.bbc.com/news (@13:30z)

[Plantagenet]

... judgmental.

Since when did a lack of judgement become a virtue?

[onlooker]

I think they're is a distinction between judgement as in reasoning/analysis and judgement as in reaching a verdict.

[Tanada]

I'm becoming less and less impressed with Christianity and its more devout Fundamentalist advocates every day.

We dismiss every follower of any particular faith, and the fundamental values of any particular faith based solely on the actions of a few people of that faith.

Perfectly rational. Perfectly logical.

Perfectly judgmental.

While the generally accepted Holy book of Christianity contains some pretty harsh and even genocidal instructions in the Old Testament, the New Testament is about love and forgiveness. You won't find Christians using the New testament as a basis for rape or slaughter of non believers, though from time to time powerful religious demagogues have reached back into the Old Testament for an excuse to do those kind of horrible things. Even so those who preach hate and conquest based on the Christian Bible are looked upon with disgust by the average Christian and frequently disavowed publicly and loudly. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church for a recent historical example, they are seen as a far fringe hate group by nearly everyone and publicly proclaimed to be so by almost any average Christian you might randomly pick off the street.

The same is not true of the Islamic Holy book, the Quran. It has much in common with the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. A long list of sins merit the death penalty in the Quran and there has never been a widely accepted 'New Testament of Islam' that moderates those punishments. Therefore the more devout a believer the Islamic individual is the more literally they take those punishments and the more intently they desire to see those punishments carried out.

While only perhaps one half of one percent of Islamic believers are so devout that they are willing to kill and possibly die for their faith they are often able to find other believers who while not willing to kill and/or die, are willing to assist the most devout with support or at least silence. I can count the number of Islamic people who loudly proclaim these attacks are not in line with Islam on the fingers of my two hands. Pick a random Islamic American off the street, and I am referring to people born here who grew up here, not immigrants. Ask that Islamic American about Sharia Law and other very fundamentalist Islamic practices and a very high percentage will tell you they think we should all live under that standard. In this case I am referring to the 20 percent of those BORN AND RAISED IN THE USA who are members of the Islamic faith and believe we should all live under its tenants.

[Plantagenet]

I think they're is a distinction between judgement as in reasoning/analysis and judgement as in reaching a verdict.

????

So its OK to use reasoning and analysis but its not OK to come to a decision or to voice an opinion based on reasoning and analysis?

I don't think thats the concern here. This disagreement is really about the Islamist terrorists.

I've expressed the opinion that I don't like Islamist terrorists who blow up women and children and murder innocent people in the name of Allah and for some reason that rubs you the wrong way----its too "judgmental."

I appreciate your open-minded acceptance of the terrorist bombers, but I just can't agree with you---its against my better judgement. Lets just agree to disagree on this, OK?

Cheers!
-----------------------------

[onlooker]

Again guys I do not accept or condone terrorist bombers or violence. I find Tanada's point interesting in that he speaks of a larger percentage of people who acquiesce to terrorist actions based on Fundamental tenets of Islam. So I ask then how is that markedly different from our acquiescence of what the US military has done over time in different countries. They're spraying agent Orange all over Vietnam, the nuclear detonations in Japan and of course now the widespread wanton destruction in the Middle East. Or for that matter how much and extensively we have armed ourselves and spent money on the military. If the grievance is about a warlike people well I suggest that the US in the preeminent warlike country in the world in the 20th and now 21st century and we voted in those leaders who made it such.

[yellowcanoe]

Ask that Islamic American about Sharia Law and other very fundamentalist Islamic practices and a very high percentage will tell you they think we should all live under that standard. In this case I am referring to the 20 percent of those BORN AND RAISED IN THE USA who are members of the Islamic faith and believe we should all live under its tenants.

My interpretation would be that muslims tend to be more socially conservative then your typical westerner so I can see the attraction of a sharia like legal system. I don't think the term Sharia Law is all that well defined and while Muslim countries do tend to incorporate aspects of Sharia Law into their legal system, I'd be hard pressed to identify a country that is entirely conformant with Sharia Law.

What baffles me is why left leaning people are so adamant that we need to incorporate large numbers of non-Christians into our societies when many of these groups tend to be socially conservative and not supportive of many things that are precious to those on the left (women's rights, gay rights, abortion, etc.).

[Plantagenet]

I ask then how is [Islamic terrorism] markedly different from our acquiescence of what the US military has done over time in different countries. They're spraying agent Orange all over Vietnam, the nuclear detonations in Japan and of course now the widespread wanton destruction in the Middle East. Or for that matter how much and extensively we have armed ourselves and spent money on the military. If the grievance is about a warlike people well I suggest that the US in the preeminent warlike country in the world in the 20th and now 21st century and we voted in those leaders who made it such.

The difference is that Islamic terrorists who blow people up are following the directions of their religious leaders in the Islamic Caliphate, whereas US actions in Vietnam etc. were followed the directions of secular leaders----not religious leaders.

The US is a secular state, i.e. it is not controlled by religious leaders and it is not based on any religious teachings. The Islamic state is a sectarian Islamic state, i.e. it is controlled by Islamic religious leaders and it is based on the Koran.

See the difference?

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

I'd be hard pressed to identify a country that is entirely conformant with Sharia Law.

Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen and Mauritania all claim to be ruled by Sharia Law. So does the Caliphate in Iraq and Syria (i.e. the Islamic State). Sharia Law is also maintained within areas controlled by IS and a few other Islamist rebel groups in Africa.

As a non-Muslim I don't think its my job to tell Iran or Saudi Arabia or IS whether or not they are properly following Sharia Law----but I have no problem saying I think the whole idea of Sharia Law is barbaric.


People punished in accordance with Sharia Law by having a hand and a foot chopped off on opposite sides. For does not the Koran say: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides....

[ennui2]

If the grievance is about a warlike people well I suggest that the US in the preeminent warlike country in the world in the 20th and now 21st century and we voted in those leaders who made it such.

I find this argument a dead-end, though. All it does is suggest that two wrongs make a right, an apologia of sorts. By blaming the status quo on the West, then in some sense we "deserve" terrorism. Innocient people deserve to be gunned down or blown up.

You can deny you condone or play apologist all you want, but that's how it comes across. It's no different from a white supremacist listing his grievances about how the brown man from here or there is taking his jobs away. In the end it's about deciding you're on team X and against team Y. It's morally bankrupt based on your double-standard.

You are far more interested in casting history in such a way to make the West out as a villain than you are in stepping back and calling for peace and brotherhood of all mankind. This also completely avoids the real strain of hate and lack of regard for human life that runs through much of the middle-east. The way suicide bombers are treated like teen idols in the Palestinian territories, for instance. The people there are content to celebrate Israeli murders on the one hand, while hauling out the cameras to record any perceived abuse or atrocity suffered by themselves.

You simply can't engender sympathy for a cause on the basis of double-standards like this. So Onlooker, you simply must get BEYOND trying to convince people one side is "right" and one side is "wrong". If you keep play favorites and spinning like this, it's just tribalism, which just devolves into Hatfields and the McCoys attrition down to the last man.

My interpretation would be that muslims tend to be more socially conservative then your typical westerner

The reality is if you are born into a muslim society, you are essentially imprisoned by that society. You do not have the freedom to opt out. As such, out of the billion or what have you muslims in the world, I'd guess more are muslims by compulsion rather than choice. This is especially true of women considering how poorly they are treated.

[onlooker]

Okay Ennui, lets make a truce here. I concede that the situation is that it is violence on both sides. I also, in no way wish to be interpreted that I condone terrorism and that I have no sympathy for its victims. So, I think we can move on from this topic and try and hope that one or both sides tries to tone down the violence. I can only say from the bottom of my heart, i wish humanity did not fight so much with each other now and in the past.

[ennui2]

Okay Ennui, lets make a truce here.

No. Watch this. Stop burying your head in the sand that man's inhumanity to man can only exist via drones and resource-wars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlCazztehbI

Do you know what it would be like to grow up in an oppressive society that expected you, by virtue of your birth, to live a certain way otherwise you could be rightfully executed? This is anathema to a free society.

The West(TM) has every right to resist this force, as it's basically a ideological colonialism. You may despise Western Miley Cyrus consumerist decadence, and I'm not too thrilled with it either. But I would not want to be caught dead having to live under strict Sharia law and it would be foolish to assume that all those who do are in some way voluntarily following their own unique bliss and we should just honor our differences.

This is an expansionist way of life, just as expansionist or moreso than Christianity during the time of the crusades or the missionaries.

I'm not saying we should turn the middle-east into glass, but I am not going to pretend this isn't a serious problem for the sake of maintaining political correctness either.

[onlooker]

I can only say this Ennui from the quote my Ghandi "An eye for an eye and pretty soon the world is blind" Violence begets more violence. I do value my western freedoms and I despise totalitarianism in all its forms. I will cease speaking about this topic out of respect and consideration for ALL of the victims both living and dead and those yet to come.

[Cog]

The claimed shoot down of two India jets are a follow on to a bombing raid by Indian planes of a suspected Kashmir terrorist training camp in the region. Now I would have no objection to India wrecking havoc on the Pakistani military. They did, after all hide out Osama Bid Laden for years and support terrorism of all kinds but calmer minds will probably prevail.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47383634

Pakistan says it has shot down two Indian Air Force jets in a major escalation of the Kashmir conflict.

A spokesman said one plane had fallen inside Pakistani territory and two pilots had been captured. India has not yet given details. Pakistan has denied reports one of its jets was shot down.

Both India and Pakistan claim all of Kashmir, but control only parts of it.

The nuclear powers have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947. All but one were over Kashmir.
◾Follow updates as they happen
◾India and Pakistan in uncharted waters

The aerial attacks across the Line of Control (LoC) dividing Indian and Pakistani territory are the first since a war in 1971.

They follow a militant attack in Kashmir which killed 40 Indian troops - the deadliest to take place during a three-decade insurgency against Indian rule in Kashmir. A Pakistan-based group said it carried out the attack.

The BBC's Soutik Biswas, in Delhi, says the challenge for India and Pakistan now is to contain the latest escalation before things get completely out of control

[Newfie]

Matter of time. Look at how Pakistan gets its water.