Assassination attempt on Danish islam-critic fails

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So I just read there's been an attempt on the life of Danish historian and prominent islam cricic Lars Hedegaard, who heads the International Free Press Society. Apparently a man with a 'foreign appareance' aged somewhere 20-25 tried to shoot him.
According to the report, he missed, Hedegaard punched him in the face and he dropped his gun and fled after a short struggle. A second version on some media is the gun jammed instead.

BBC has the story too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21341878

I can't say I'd heard of the guy or his foundation before, but if he's either an islam-basher or a genuine critic of integration problems, then this stuff is only going to make things worse all around.


Probably not much debate possible about the attack itself, but do you think this attack will have greater repercussions in Denmark or the EU? Actually I wonder how this news is being taken in Denmark itself?

The assassin brought a gun to a fistfight and lost. I think it's a victory for free speech when the people who are against free speech lose to a 70 year old man.

You would think an assassin of all people (i know hes probably not a "professional" but still) would at least be able to hit a 70 year old man who doesn't even know hes about to be shot. Its just pathetic. Good on Lars for teaching him whos boss.

Dutch populist politician and islam-basher (he goes far enough that you can safely call him that) Geert Wilders has responded to this on twitter, saying that "the failed attempt on my friend [is] terrible". Yeah, he's happy alright. This is more votes for Wilders' party. He now has another example when he's ranting about what islam is supposedly doing to the Netherlands.

Yeah, sure, it proves there's religious loonies willing to kill over criticism towards their religion, but peeps like Wilders don't stop at that, they'll equate it to something broader and try to paint some 'western world vs islam' image out of it.

That kind of stuff frustrates me about events like this. You know in a split second who's going to hijack it and why they're wrong, and it happens exactly that way afterwards.

He got punched. Seriously?

It's good news either way, although it's probable that this attack is going to be inevitably hijacked for some agenda or another, as you said.

There aren't any good terrorists nowadays. They can't even load a magazine properly. Then they're surprised the gun jams and a 70 year old man kicks the shit out of them. Oh, where have the Soviet KGB training camps gone...

Dane here, we are taking the news pretty well. This seems to be a one-off thing like the bomb that utterly failed about a year ago, our terrorists are incompetent.

Another Dane here.

The guy quoted for saying "Muslim fathers rape their daughters". So clearly he is more of a Muslim basher than anything else. We have quite a lot of former left wing turned anti-Muslim debaters. This is obviously going to be used for more immigration control.

And as Nikolaz72 said our terrorists are incompetent, a few years ago a guy with an axe tried to kill Kurt Westergaard (the Muhammed cartoon artist) but failed too.

Gorr:
Another Dane here.

The guy quoted for saying "Muslim fathers rape their daughters". So clearly he is more of a Muslim basher than anything else.

Yeah, I had a feeling when I saw the thread title that "Islam Critic" was just a nice way of saying "Islamophobe."

Oh, please please please make this turn out to be a false flag.

Why do all terrorists suck at assassinations?
There have been like 5 now, and not a single one was successfull.

Also the "Free Press Society" seems somewhat shady.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Press_Society

cahtush:
Why do all terrorists suck at assassinations?

Established terrorist groups are probably pretty competent at assassinations, because they have training and expertise.

Thing is, I suspect this was more a lone nutjob than some sort of dedicated terrorist. There are always a small pool of these sorts of people who get an idea into their heads to go kill someone for whatever reason (ultra-ideology, mentally unabalanced, etc.), and go off half-cocked. It is no surprise they make such a hash of it so often.

Gorr:

And as Nikolaz72 said our terrorists are incompetent, a few years ago a guy with an axe tried to kill Kurt Westergaard (the Muhammed cartoon artist) but failed too.

As I recall he charged two police offices while swinging the axe and yelling at them. It seems his studies of the battle of the Somme were lacking to say the least.

OT: The fascists in parliament have been over milking immigration troubles for a long time, I doubt this will change anything.

Blablahb:
I can't say I'd heard of the guy or his foundation before, but if he's either an islam-basher or a genuine critic of integration problems, then this stuff is only going to make things worse all around.

Yes and that is actually the really sad part about all of this, isn't it? This event will stir even more anti-islam resentment and is going to be a boon for the islam-bashing populist right no matter how this turns out. But not even only for them: the religious extremists will also get their fair share since the polarization from this event will probably also lead to rejection or fostering of the idea that Islam is fundamentally incompatible to the west and so must stand against it.

EDIT: Since people seem to see the above paragraph as me either condoning or apologizing this event, let me be clear: this post is in no way meant to apologize this brand of religious extremism or excuse this kind of violence. I also acknowledge the scale difference between right-wing wing populism and this sort of violent extremism embodied by the attack. The latter is quite evidently worse than the former. For more clarification consult the rest of the thread.

What the effect of this whole event now hinges on is how polarized the Danish society already is in that regard, how much this event can be exploited by the extremists and if the civil society, the political establishment and moderate muslim groups can condemn this act without feeding the divide the extremists want. Fortunately I consider the Danish state to prove rather resistant, but we shall see how this turns out.

As the man himself said afterwards: "It was what one could expect".

Abrahamic faiths have always been violent and oppressive ideologies about complete subjugation to absolute norms which cannot be discussed. No surprises that the trend continues with the most political and least modernized of them.

A danish event makes it to the international headlines, and I have to find out about it here?
Damnit, I really need to pay more attention to the news...

Xan Krieger:
The assassin brought a gun to a fistfight and lost. I think it's a victory for free speech when the people who are against free speech lose to a 70 year old man.

If you view yourself as a soldier acting on the behest of your god, and you walk up to an unarmed guy who doesn't know you're coming and you try to shoot him, and he ends up winning the fight, I can't help but think you lay awake the next night wondering if you're really backing the right team.

thaluikhain:
Oh, please please please make this turn out to be a false flag.

It certainly would be an interesting concept, but, barring evidence of that, it's probably not. Sometimes assholery is coordinated, like the Free Press Society. Other times, it's not, like the would be assassin.

cahtush:
Why do all terrorists suck at assassinations?
There have been like 5 now, and not a single one was successfull.

Also the "Free Press Society" seems somewhat shady.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Press_Society

It does appear that they're less about free speech and more about cover for anti-Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry.

Speaking of which...

Imperator_DK:
As the man himself said afterwards: "It was what one could expect".

Abrahamic faiths have always been violent and oppressive ideologies about complete subjugation to absolute norms which cannot be discussed. No surprises that the trend continues with the most political of them and least modernized of them.

You do realize that you've become the embodiment of the anti-religion strawman much in the same way Blablahb has become the anti-gun strawman, taking such a ridiculously hard line approach that even proponents on your side can't support you? Your reflexive religion-bashing would be right at home among the Free Press Society.

The Gentleman:
...
You do realize that you've become the embodiment of the anti-religion strawman much in the same way Blablahb has become the anti-gun strawman, taking such a ridiculously hard line approach that even proponents on your side can't support you?

Sure, I'm obviously very much a hard liner on the issue, in a vast sea of people quite willing to overlook a bit of atheist oppression there and a bit of homophobic dogma there, all for the sake of pragmatic pleasantry.

I don't form opinions based on popularity polls though. Islam is as vile an ideology as the others the ancient Middle East spewed out, hopelessly intertwined with illiberal and socially conservative politics, and without much dogmatic room for evolution. So I condemn it and its followers; just as I would Rick Santorum's policies and followers for their theocratic homophobia.

Imperator_DK:
Sure, I'm obviously very much a hard liner on the issue, in a vast sea of people quite willing to overlook a bit of atheist oppression there and a bit of homophobic dogma there, all for the sake of pragmatic pleasantry.

I don't form opinions based on popularity polls though. Islam is as vile an ideology as the others the ancient Middle East spewed out, hopelessly intertwined with illiberal and socially conservative politics, and without much dogmatic room for evolution. So I condemn it and its followers; just as I would Rick Santorum's policies and followers for their theocratic homophobia.

And, in the process, you conveniently ignore reformers who push for more openness, acceptance, and social justice within churches, temples, and mosques, as well as the brutality, and illiberal and socially conservative policies of the few atheistic regimes out there. You view religious justification as a cause rather than a symptom of problems that can be easier traced to baser human problems of tackling change and handling dissent. It's not dissimilar to how conservatives think "government spending" is the cause of systemic economic problems rather than a symptom of the higher costs from not adequately tackling the problems themselves.

The Gentleman:
And, in the process, you conveniently ignore reformers who push for more openness, acceptance, and social justice within churches, temples, and mosques, as well as the brutality, and illiberal and socially conservative policies of the few atheistic regimes out there. You view religious justification as a cause rather than a symptom of problems that can be easier traced to baser human problems of tackling change and handling dissent. It's not dissimilar to how conservatives think "government spending" is the cause of systemic economic problems rather than a symptom of the higher costs from not adequately tackling the problems themselves.

Entirely accurate. It's incidently exactly this kind of emotionally fuelled simplifications that will lend the cause of the religious extremists exactly the kind of perceived inequality and isolation in contrast to the rest of society they need to spread their incompatibilist message and further their goals.

cahtush:
Why do all terrorists suck at assassinations?
There have been like 5 now, and not a single one was successfull.
Also the "Free Press Society" seems somewhat shady.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Press_Society

Someone's been fucking around with that wikipedia entry though. Wilders said as a figure of speech after citing some violent stuff that's in the quran and comparing it to Mein Kampf (which is illegal in the Netherlands) "Then I say, why don't we ban that fascist book?". That's different from wanting an actual ban like that wiki entry describes. And has party hasn't put any such ban forwards, while they wholesale in silly motions that shot down instantly.

And he's not against 'islamic attire', he wants veils of the type that belong with radical islam banned. Think along the lines of the burqa, the chador. That's not just Wilders either, last government before this one instated a ban on the burqa on 27 january 2012. Wearing one can have one receive a € 380 fine, but estimates of newspapers suggest there's only a handfull of burqa wearing women in the Netherlands. It's mostly a symbolic statement against extremism and anti-western symbolism.

Wilders is definately among the bashers, but he's not stupid. He puts things forwards that are populistic, but not very radical. He keeps away from clear blanket statement and truly unjustifyable generalisations. For instance his campaigning against islamic schools, he hangs on real reports about the poor quality of those, and problems where for instance kids were kept in conditions that were a fire hazard, or subjected to corporal punishment, which has been banned since like the 1920's.

The Gentleman:
...
And, in the process, you conveniently ignore reformers who push for more openness, acceptance, and social justice within churches, temples, and mosques

No, I certainly don't condemn "Abrahamic theology as reformists would have it". I condemn "Abrahamic theology as it is now", i.e. the official and authoritative dogmatic views of the various Abrahamic denominations. Everything could potentially become something else, but what matters when evaluating it is what it is now.

And remind me, which mosques were pushing for gay rights again?

as well as the brutality, and illiberal and socially conservative policies of the few atheistic regimes out there.

I obviously condemn Nazism and Communism as well. Unsurprisingly, that something isn't an Abrahamic religion doesn't guarantee it to be good.

You view religious justification as a cause rather than a symptom of problems that can be easier traced to baser human problems of tackling change and handling dissent. It's not dissimilar to how conservatives think "government spending" is the cause of systemic economic problems rather than a symptom of the higher costs from not adequately tackling the problems themselves.

Religious justification is a part of the cause. Most humans psychologically need excuses for engaging in cruelty and oppression, and the ghastly scriptures of Abrahamic religion offers ample. Stuff like puritanism and homophobia are systemic problems, and Abrahamic religion is part of the system keeping it in place.

Sure there are other causes as well, and more fundamental psychological ones at work, but why would one not condemn this particular venue of expressing them too? Or do you not condemn ideologies such as National Socialism either, but relegate them to a category of "Oh, it's just a symptom of widespread societal upheaval, on which no ethical evaluation can be performed" as well?

...and if it's really the "baser problems" of the adherents which is to blame, how would that make them any less vile?

Imperator_DK:
No, I certainly don't condemn "Abrahamic theology as reformists would have it". I condemn "Abrahamic theology as it is now", i.e. the official and authoritative dogmatic views of the various Abrahamic denominations.

Pst, reformists are an extremist and very conservative protestant denomination. ;-)

Imperator_DK:
And remind me, which mosques were pushing for gay rights again?

Although I'll be the first to admit you've got a good point there, and Islamic communities are homophobic in overwhelming majority, there's the occasional light at the end of the tunnel. Recently someone earned himself the nickname 'the pink imam' by going public saying the quran doesn't condemn homosexuality. He's got a theological battle on his hands obviously, and the twists and turns he has to make are rather uncredible, but hey, the same was the case for Christian preachers who preached reform and tolerance, and they certainly had some limited succes.

It's still going to be decades before mainstream islamic groups start to accept reform and tolerance like that, but at least the first attempts are there.

Nikolaz72:
Dane here, we are taking the news pretty well. This seems to be a one-off thing like the bomb that utterly failed about a year ago, our terrorists are incompetent.

..Or the suicide-bomber in Stockholm which had planted several car-bombs, and one on himself, detonating them all on a busy street, only to have every car-bomb fail, and his one charges killing him and no-one else.

Imperator_DK:

The Gentleman:
...
And, in the process, you conveniently ignore reformers who push for more openness, acceptance, and social justice within churches, temples, and mosques

No, I certainly don't condemn "Abrahamic theology as reformists would have it". I condemn "Abrahamic theology as it is now", i.e. the official and authoritative dogmatic views of the various Abrahamic denominations. Everything could potentially become something else, but what matters when evaluating it is what it is now.

And remind me, which mosques were pushing for gay rights again?

The Al-Fatiha Foundation is an organization which advances the cause of gay, lesbian, and transgender Muslims. It was founded in 1998 by Faisal Alam, a Pakistani American, and is registered as a nonprofit organization in the United States. The organization was an offshoot of an internet listserve that brought together many gay, lesbian and questioning Muslims from various countries.[61] The Foundation accepts and considers homosexuality as natural, either regarding Qur'anic verses as obsolete in the context of modern society, or stating that the Qu'ran speaks out against homosexual lust and is silent on homosexual love. In 2001, Al-Muhajiroun, a banned and now defunct international organization who sought the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate, issued a fatwa declaring that all members of Al-Fatiha were murtadd, or apostates, and condemning them to death. Because of the threat and coming from conservative societies, many members of the foundation's site still prefer to be anonymous so as to protect their identity while continuing a tradition of secrecy.[62] Al-Fatiha has fourteen chapters in the United States, as well as offices in England, Canada, Spain, Turkey, and South Africa. In addition, Imaan, a social support group for Muslim LGBT people and their families, exists in the UK.[63] Both of these groups were founded by gay Pakistani activists. The UK also has the Safra Project for women.

It's not much, but it's something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam#LGBT_movements_within_Islam

Blablahb:
Although I'll be the first to admit you've got a good point there, and Islamic communities are homophobic in overwhelming majority, there's the occasional light at the end of the tunnel. Recently someone earned himself the nickname 'the pink imam' by going public saying the quran doesn't condemn homosexuality. He's got a theological battle on his hands obviously, and the twists and turns he has to make are rather uncredible, but hey, the same was the case for Christian preachers who preached reform and tolerance, and they certainly had some limited succes.

As the article state:

Mr Hendricks is no longer officially a cleric.

The only place that guy is a Muslim is in his own head. No denomination exist that'll have him. People always talk of how important it is to distinguish extremists from ordinary believers. But the ordinary world average Muslim is an illiberal, sexist, homophobe. Which of course isn't illegal to be, but should get him ostracised from civil society all the same.

And as you say, the the twists and turns he'd have to make are rather uncredible... to say the least. Religion is a game where the only way to win is hypocrisy, selective reading of sources, juggling half-truths, mental acrobatics, and cherry picking, desperately trying to update archaic book claimed to contain eternal truths to modernity. Hardly too respectable.

It's still going to be decades before mainstream islamic groups start to accept reform and tolerance like that, but at least the first attempts are there.

I'll be sure to give them credit for it then.

Realitycrash:
...

The Al-Fatiha Foundation is an organization which advances the cause of gay, lesbian, and transgender Muslims. It was founded in 1998 by Faisal Alam, a Pakistani American, and is registered as a nonprofit organization in the United States. The organization was an offshoot of an internet listserve that brought together many gay, lesbian and questioning Muslims from various countries.[61] The Foundation accepts and considers homosexuality as natural, either regarding Qur'anic verses as obsolete in the context of modern society, or stating that the Qu'ran speaks out against homosexual lust and is silent on homosexual love. In 2001, Al-Muhajiroun, a banned and now defunct international organization who sought the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate, issued a fatwa declaring that all members of Al-Fatiha were murtadd, or apostates, and condemning them to death. Because of the threat and coming from conservative societies, many members of the foundation's site still prefer to be anonymous so as to protect their identity while continuing a tradition of secrecy.[62] Al-Fatiha has fourteen chapters in the United States, as well as offices in England, Canada, Spain, Turkey, and South Africa. In addition, Imaan, a social support group for Muslim LGBT people and their families, exists in the UK.[63] Both of these groups were founded by gay Pakistani activists. The UK also has the Safra Project for women.

It's not much, but it's something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam#LGBT_movements_within_Islam

Not really a religious denomination though. Same as the preacher above, they're people who subjectively consider themselves Muslims, but don't actually fit the theological bill of any Muslim denomination in existance. Hence they're people with personal faith. Pushing for official recognition from/alteration of a different faith, Islam as currently practised.

Imperator_DK:

Not really a religious denomination though. Same as the preacher above, they're people who subjectively consider themselves Muslims, but don't actually fit the theological bill of any Muslim denomination in existance. Hence they're people with personal faith. Pushing for official recognition from/alteration of a different faith, Islam as currently practised.

Ugh, are we going to have this discussion again, where we argue about what defines a 'true' understanding of a faith, and which denomination is 'correct'?
Islam is already practiced in a varied form of ways, there is no strictly unified "correct" way (that
s why we have Shia and Sunna muslims, for instance), just as Christianity isn't more 'correct' if it is Lutheran or Baptist or Catholic.
It's a different interpretation, and we don't arbitrarily get to decide which is the 'right' or 'correct' one. We can claim by some extend that one interpretation is the older one, the 'original and true' one, but I don't think it matches the current one, since scholars have been bickering about the 'original and true' one for centuries.
As the quote says, the Koran only speaks of Homosexual Lust, not Love, so ultimately those that follow the Koran have to make an interpretation about what that means.

Realitycrash:
...
Ugh, are we going to have this discussion again, where we argue about what defines a 'true' understanding of a faith, and which denomination is 'correct'?
Islam is already practiced in a varied form of ways, there is no strictly unified "correct" way (that
s why we have Shia and Sunna muslims, for instance), just as Christianity isn't more 'correct' if it is Lutheran or Baptist or Catholic.
It's a different interpretation, and we don't arbitrarily get to decide which is the 'right' or 'correct' one. We can claim by some extend that one interpretation is the older one, the 'original and true' one, but I don't think it matches the current one, since scholars have been bickering about the 'original and true' one for centuries.
As the quote says, the Koran only speaks of Homosexual Lust, not Love, so ultimately those that follow the Koran have to make an interpretation about what that means.

So Muhammed, an Arabian warlord anno 600, had a vision of made a distinction between homosexual lust and homosexual love (...the lust part of which is ok?), did he now?

Yep, that sounds like an equally plausible interpretation of Muhammed's original intent, to the one that practising homosexuality is a sin. Which have been consistent for 1300 years, even longer so in the older religions Islam was inspired by, and is today held as official policy in all Islamic nations.

Or maybe not. It's beyond all reasonable doubt that Islam does and have always condemned homosexuality. That a few gay "Muslims" - with obviously vested interest - say otherwise don't magically override the linguistics, hermeneutics, and history, which all point elsewhere. However sympathetic and ethically superior their baseless claim might be, all evidence is against them: An infinitely small theoretical chance might exist, but for all practical purposes, they're simply wrong.

Imperator_DK:

Realitycrash:
...
Ugh, are we going to have this discussion again, where we argue about what defines a 'true' understanding of a faith, and which denomination is 'correct'?
Islam is already practiced in a varied form of ways, there is no strictly unified "correct" way (that
s why we have Shia and Sunna muslims, for instance), just as Christianity isn't more 'correct' if it is Lutheran or Baptist or Catholic.
It's a different interpretation, and we don't arbitrarily get to decide which is the 'right' or 'correct' one. We can claim by some extend that one interpretation is the older one, the 'original and true' one, but I don't think it matches the current one, since scholars have been bickering about the 'original and true' one for centuries.
As the quote says, the Koran only speaks of Homosexual Lust, not Love, so ultimately those that follow the Koran have to make an interpretation about what that means.

So Muhammed, an Arabian warlord anno 600, had a vision of made a distinction between homosexual lust and homosexual love (...the lust part of which is ok?), did he now?

Yep, that sounds like an equally plausible interpretation of Muhammed's original intent, to the one that practising homosexuality is a sin. Which have been consistent for 1300 years, even longer so in the older religions Islam was inspired by, and is today held as official policy in all Islamic nations.

Or maybe not. It's beyond all reasonable doubt that Islam does and have always condemned homosexuality. That a few gay "Muslims" - with obviously vested interest - say otherwise don't magically override the linguistics, hermeneutics, and history, which all point elsewhere. However sympathetic and ethically superior their baseless claim might be, all evidence is against them: An infinitely small theoretical chance might exist, but for all practical purposes, they're simply wrong.

No, a few gay Muslims do not override lingustics, hermeneutics and tradition. But it does create a new interpretation, and that is sufficient for a new denomination.

If tradition and majority is sufficient for proving what is, and what is not, then do not see why we should call Catholicism as Christianity, and everyone else 'wrong'.

Realitycrash:
...
No, a few gay Muslims do not override lingustics, hermeneutics and tradition. But it does create a new interpretation, and that is sufficient for a new denomination.

Though one has yet to actually be formed.

Should they actually form one, whose official and authoritative dogma is that Allah loves everything gay, I'll be sure to exempt it from criticism for being homophobic. As of now, they're individuals seeking to change official dogma of other denominations, to whose official and authoritative word they do not heed.

If tradition and majority is sufficient for proving what is, and what is not, then do not see why we should call Catholicism as Christianity, and everyone else 'wrong'.

It's sufficient to prove attempted reinterpretations of dogma that officially and authoritatively relies on the traditional interpretation wrong. Protestantism broke away and established new dogmatic systems entirely, hence why it became an actual religious denomination rather than a bunch of discontent former Catholics.

Chromatic Aberration:

Yes and that is actually the really sad part about all of this, isn't it? This event will stir even more anti-islam resentment and is going to be a boon for the islam-bashing populist right no matter how this turns out.

THAT is the really sad part? Not that religious nuts are willing to murder anyone who criticizes them? Not that this is only the latest in a long line of assassinations and attempts that have silenced or forced some of the most creative minds in the muslim world underground? The sad part to you is that muslims murdering people might make other people suspicious of muslims? That's an interesting priority.

Personally of course, though overgeneralized bigotry is logically a fallacy and morally a failing, it in no way rises to the level of murder. And I think that anyone whose first thought when someone is murdered is to hope that people aren't too hard on whatever group the murderer comes from have some serious moral failings of their own.

Macomber:
THAT is the really sad part? Not that religious nuts are willing to murder anyone who criticizes them? Not that this is only the latest in a long line of assassinations and attempts that have silenced or forced some of the most creative minds in the muslim world underground? The sad part to you is that muslims murdering people might make other people suspicious of muslims? That's an interesting priority.

Well, you have to realise this is thinking on the big scale. Somebody nearly getting shot is an evil act, a terrorist act, but outside of that person it affects nobody directly. Intolerance which can rise from incidents like this however affects all of society, that's why it can be regarded as a bigger problem.

Plus that acts of religious extremism and terrorism are not something that citizens can do much about, other than the usual of opposing religious extremism, religious privilege, and attempts to force religious values onto people (and maybe acts of law enforcement if you happen to be employed as police or army reserve). It's low discussion value and low worry value as a result. Intolerance however is only possible if we let it, perfectly preventable, and something we need to worry about. That's why it's spoken off more quickly after a case like this, and appears to be found more important.

It doesn't mean anybody's saying assasination attempts don't suck or aren't a serious problem, it's just that on the larger scale, society-wide, there's a bigger problem related to this incident.

Macomber:

Chromatic Aberration:

Yes and that is actually the really sad part about all of this, isn't it? This event will stir even more anti-islam resentment and is going to be a boon for the islam-bashing populist right no matter how this turns out.

THAT is the really sad part? Not that religious nuts are willing to murder anyone who criticizes them? Not that this is only the latest in a long line of assassinations and attempts that have silenced or forced some of the most creative minds in the muslim world underground? The sad part to you is that muslims murdering people might make other people suspicious of muslims? That's an interesting priority.

That was not my intention. The figure of speech "the really sad part" was meant to signify that even among this kind of violent tragedy, the event will have more negative consequences than apparent. I apologize for any offense that this might have caused.

On the other hand...

Personally of course, though overgeneralized bigotry is logically a fallacy and morally a failing, it in no way rises to the level of murder. And I think that anyone whose first thought when someone is murdered is to hope that people aren't too hard on whatever group the murderer comes from have some serious moral failings of their own.

...thank you very much for that ad-hominem. I really love it when people use my posts to try to score policy points by degrading me.

Chromatic Aberration:
...
That was not my intention. The figure of speech "the really sad part" was meant to signify that even among this kind of violent tragedy, the event will have more negative consequences than apparent.
...

How would it not be "apparent" that continuous assassinations and assassination attempts in the name of a religion is bad publicity for it?

What's considerably less apparent here is why societal ostracism of a sexist homophobic ideology is a bad thing. I for one would rather prefer such things to be kept incompatible with western culture, though you seem rather keen that it embrace it.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked