Muslim lawyers will "burn alive" anyone who defends murdered 12 year old Christian

[Sofiyya 1,687]

One more thing.

We are told over and over that terrorists are not true Muslims. If that is the case why do people get so bent out of shape when a terrorist is verbally attacked? Muslims should get upset at the terrorist, not at someone who posts or writes a story.

These lawyers aren't terrorists, they're scumbags, and scumbags come in all nationalities, races and religions. Scumbags are universal; acts of murder and immorality are universal. The article may be appropriate in a setting that addresses a context particular to that country, yet it hardly defines the universal attitudes of Muslims the world over.

So, yes, we denounce the alleged torture and murder of an innocent child, no matter their religion. And we insist on justice for her and punishment for those who obstruct justice. It is not about moral relativism or Muslim vs, Christian. This is the position of anyone with a moral compass, no matter their faith, race, or nationality.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Sofiyya

[DanielParul 50]

Unfortunately most times I read about intolerance and bad attitudes, it points towards a particular community and I am forced to believe what I see.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Unfortunately most times I read about intolerance and bad attitudes, it points towards a particular community and I am forced to believe what I see.

I feel the same, although we may not be referring to the same community.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

These lawyers aren't terrorists, they're scumbags, and scumbags come in all nationalities, races and religions. Scumbags are universal; acts of murder and immorality are universal. The article may be appropriate in a setting that addresses a context particular to that country, yet it hardly defines the universal attitudes of Muslims the world over.

So, yes, we denounce the alleged torture and murder of an innocent child, no matter their religion. And we insist on justice for her and punishment for those who obstruct justice. It is not about moral relativism or Muslim vs, Christian. This is the position of anyone with a moral compass, no matter their faith, race, or nationality.

Um well lets see the group is threatening to burn people alive. They are using terror to keep another group of people from following justice. A person who uses terror for political gains is what? Yes, a terrorist.

[Dan J 277]

Um well lets see the group is threatening to burn people alive. They are using terror to keep another group of people from following justice. A person who uses terror for political gains is what? Yes, a terrorist.

If you use that sort of logic, A mafia demanding protection money would also be a terrorist. A threat doesn't make a terrorist, an action does.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If you use that sort of logic, A mafia demanding protection money would also be a terrorist. A threat doesn't make a terrorist, an action does.

lol I'm using the definition verbatim.

Terrorism

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

What about Pakistani Hindus?

Very much persecuted, oft targetted by Army/ISI-sponsored goondas. Recent traffic on "Thar Express" showed over 1,000 Hindus had entered India through this train and then applied for asylum--about 10 times that number would have crossed border and simply merged in WITHOUT applying for visa first.

[Danno 1,228]

How quaint, given the subject of this entire thread...not to mention your views on homosexuality.

Steve the main difference between you and I on this topic is: you believe you can force other countries into following your brand of morals and while we might agree on many other those principles, I think even a glimpse at history will show the error of this.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

If you use that sort of logic, A mafia demanding protection money would also be a terrorist. A threat doesn't make a terrorist, an action does.

should that be the case, osama bin laden isn't a terrorist as he hasn't taken any action himself.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

When a country's laws are purported to be based on a singular religion when there are many religions inside the country, how can it not be?

Reality is that Pakistan's laws are based on an amalgam of Salafism (official religion/sect of Saudi Arabia--ironically, the basis was made by Z.A. Bhutto¹ in 1973) and the Naziesque one (ask any Bangla who--or whose parents--survived 1971's "Operation Searchlight") practiced by the country's army.

[Dan J 277]

should that be the case, osama bin laden isn't a terrorist as he hasn't taken any action himself.

He has participated in the origination and funding of terrorism. By extension he has participated in the action. If you are quick to label someone who makes a threat of violence as a terrorist, then you open the door to a lot of people who could be arrested and tried as terrorists.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Something left over (and inherited) from the Crusades? Muslim vs. Christian, all over again? hmmmmm

Wrong era and area. Pakistan's education system since 1958 glorifies the most intolerant of the Delhi Sultans and Mughal Emperors (specifically Aurangzeb who hated not only all non-Muslims but also Shias, and who didn't trust members of his own family--all of his offspring were imprisoned at some time during his near half-century reign), and even more pronouncedly since 1972 (for rather obvious reason), even suppressing their end-of-life regrets (Aurangzeb specifically regretted that his policy of forced conversion had put his empire into a shambolic state from which it would never recover--and proved correct on this when the empire's power was reduced to nought in less than 40 years after his death).

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Reality is that Pakistan's laws are based on an amalgam of Salafism (official religion/sect of Saudi Arabia--ironically, the basis was made by Z.A. Bhutto¹ in 1973) and the Naziesque one (ask any Bangla who--or whose parents--survived 1971's "Operation Searchlight"²) practiced by the country's army.

Forgot to explain my footnote (and also to add another):

1. Bhutto family (including president hours-numbered Zardari) are Shia, whom Salafi hate vitriolically (laws of Saudi Arabia on Shias are similar to those of Pakistan on Ahmadiyas)
   
2. March-to-December 1971 massacre of 3,000,000+ citizens of then East Pakistan (including 2,000,000+ Muslims and 800,000 Hindus) by Pakistani army regiments
   

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

He has participated in the origination and funding of terrorism. By extension he has participated in the action. If you are quick to label someone who makes a threat of violence as a terrorist, then you open the door to a lot of people who could be arrested and tried as terrorists.

Generally I agree with you, however in this situation it has all of the ingredients of domestic terrorism. Its dependent on how the threat of violence is delivered, and to whom it is delivered.

By the way some of what the mafia, triads, and the yukiza do actually has been classified as terrorism. Ironically organizations like al qaeda have learned a lot from how the above organizations work.

[Darnell 8,478]

Wrong era and area. Pakistan's education system since 1958 glorifies the most intolerant of the Delhi Sultans and Mughal Emperors (specifically Aurangzeb who hated not only all non-Muslims but also Shias, and who didn't trust members of his own family--all of his offspring were imprisoned at some time during his near half-century reign), and even more pronouncedly since 1972 (for rather obvious reason), even suppressing their end-of-life regrets (Aurangzeb specifically regretted that his policy of forced conversion had put his empire into a shambolic state from which it would never recover--and proved correct on this when the empire's power was reduced to nought in less than 40 years after his death).

Ya - I knew all that, alas.

My comment was flippant - as there's loads of other 'stuff' going down, those 600+ years, from then till now.

Really, I was being flippant.

I twigged to the fact that the 12-year-old lass was Christian.

Seriously though? is larger problem for that 'judge' - I'm no Middle East Scholar, but I do study with open mind, always with open mind.