View Thread

Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Amish Suspected of Massacre?
neilmarr
More than 100 people were slaughtered and at least two hundred others maimed and injured yesterday when gunmen and bombers sprang coordinated attacks on Westerners in Bombay, India.

Wonder who could be responsible ... oh, here's a hint ...

In paragraph ten of today's news report in The Scotsman, that it's unlikely to be the Amish. Says in this paragraph that some earlier attacks in the city had been blamed on Islamic terrorists. Doesn't say that's the case this time, though -- even though some outfit has claimed responsibility and half a dozen of the killers have been arrested. Maybe they're playing safe because of lack of evidence.

Hang on ... here's something else in paragraph thirty four and with a few other pars to follow...

***India has suffered a wave of bomb attacks in recent years. Most have been blamed on Islamist militants, although police have also arrested suspected Hindu extremists thought to be behind some of the attacks.

Since October 2005, nearly 700 people have died in the bombings. And since May, a militant group calling itself the Indian Mujahideen has taken credit for a string of blasts that have killed more than 130 people.

The most recent was in September when a series of explosions struck a park and shopping areas in the capital, New Delhi, killing 21 people.

Mumbai has been hit repeatedly by terror attacks since March 1993, when Muslim underworld figures tied to Pakistani militants allegedly carried out a series of bombings on the stock exchange, trains, hotels and gas stations.

Terrorism expert Paul Wilkinson, emeritus professor of international relations at St Andrews University, said last night's attacks were likely to have been mounted by a group linked to al-Qaeda.

"Extremist groups which share the ideology of al-Qaeda believe they must make war on western countries, as well as on the governments and authorities of all the countries they want to take control over.

"It is really in their eyes an attack on the world of unbelievers and they regard the western countries, particularly the US and its allies, as being especially attractive targets.
***

Why is it that this information's so low down in the story, I wonder. I could so easily have missed it.
[url]
http://www.scotsm...4736154.jp [/url]

Neil
 
neilmarr
And the New York Times today manages a full FORTY TWO PARAGRAPH front page article without speculating on any Islamic (or Amish) connection. They do mention a responsibility claim by a group called Deccan Mujahedeen, but don't bother to mention that this is a band of Indian Islamic Jahidists. Neil
 
neilmarr
And if you're wondering why I'm posting on this terrorist horror in the 'other sects, religions and cults' area, it's because to suggest that anything other than generic religious fanaticism is responsible would infuriate some here who put so-called political correctness before the atheist's right to citicise religion and to condemn its excesses on a board dedicated to atheist views.

Understandable speculation as to which religion the culprits may claim as their excuse -- or right -- for this latest outrage is obviously being quashed.

That angers me, as do calls for my own self defence when I point out religious abominations by linking to various newspaper articles and express a personal opinion on them.

You see, had any group -- yes, the Amish, the Mormons, mad Catholics, Zionist nut cases or Hindus -- been prime suspects in this case, you would expect to find that clearly stated in the intro paragraph of any news story.

But I would be pointedly criticised and my honesty and humanity called into question for placing my bets on a crazed Islamic group, and I just haven't the heart or the energy to try to justify myself against slurs on my character.

Neil
 
Skeeve
For what it's worth, here is the story reported correctly Wink

http://www.milita...ESRC=eb.nl

I'm registered at Military.com and get email updates regularly, sometimes multiple times in a day.
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
neilmarr
Some of the comments on that piece are horrifying -- stomach churningly so. But it's time we came to terms with the fact that religion can be lethal.

It is up to the religions themselves to take action, police themselves and show us an acceptable face: whether it's Catholics throwing pedophiles to the wolves, Evangelican Christians telling creationists to shut their mouths, Mormons telling their fundamentalists to play by the laws of their country, Hindus to stop their co-religionists forcing marriage on their children or the Muslim establishment and Muslimes in general to loudly denounce and disown those who kill for the Koran.

Meanwhile, nobody (especially declared atheists and secularists like us) should be discouraged from speaking out against mindless faith at every opportunity.

Neil
Edited by neilmarr on 11/27/2008 11:09
 
derF
No, no, Neil. Mustn't call the terrorists Muslims even though Islamic regimes support and supply them. You'll be accused of blaming all Muslims and therefore being misinformed and weak minded. We must go on believing that just little bands of misguided felons are responsible for the brutal mass murders. Besides, Neil, how does a reporter like yourself, who has been in the news business for years and has contacts around the world, get off thinking you have a valid opinion of such things?
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
Sinny
What I would like to know is why is it assumed that every time someone brings up muslim bombing, murders, etc that we are talking about all muslims. Clearly we are not saying we think and see, according to news reports, that all muslims are responsible. It's the fanatical radical muslims we are discussing not all muslims. It's the same with any other religion so why the political correctness when it comes to the murderous radicals? It's not like the news reports and this site are showing bombings as a joke. Some people like that but I think it's no different than sending out jokes about black slavery. No one ever sees a joke about slavery sent out or racism either. When articles and opinions about muslim bombing that really actually happened or are strongly suspected of happening by the law it's only natural that we and many others would discuss it.

For fucks sake it doesn't mean we or anyone else who discussed it considers all muslims to be the same or that suspicion is an outright accusaction. Sure they are all taught to declare war on the unbelievers, that's their religious teachings, but not all muslims actually do it.
 
derF
Well said, Sinny. The source must be considered.
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
catman
Very good point, Sinny.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
neilmarr
I'm not even talking about Muslims here, Sinny, but of general reluctance to mention Muslims in major news stories where there is the strong and reasonable suspicion of any religious link.

Just for interest, in TODAY'S The Scotsman front story -- way after we all know that a group with Islamic connections has claimed responsibility -- we must read to the last but one paragraph of a twenty-two paragraph story to read the name of the group, and the words 'Islam' and 'Muslim' are never mentioned once.

This, I feel is a complete abdication of media responsibility.

Pakistan has disowned this jihadist group and claims it is doing all it can to fight terrorism. The Pakistan government that is. I've not had time to read all today's newspaper reports yet and the only radio coverage I've heard has been from the BBC World Service, but, although governments and individuals around the world are condemning this outrage, I've yet to hear a spokesman for Islam in any country or community speaking out against the hijacking of the Koran to justify yet another bloody act of mass murder.

Neil
 
willie
You need to stop this, Neil. You are embarrassing yourself and making this site an uncomfortable place to be.

Every news report I have seen has mentioned Islamic terrorists --there has also been important discussion over other possible motives, most importantly (considering the two nations nuclear capabilities), Pakistan's possible role. Sectarian violence between the muslim and hindu communities within India has also been raised as an issue. The crushing poverty many people in the area suffer has also been a worthy topic; UK and US citizens were specifically targeted as well as India's financial district, that needs to be seen as significant. Speculation abounds. It will take months/years to decipher the facts and background to this, sadly in that time individuals, factions and governments will use the shock-waves to drive various agendas. Just like post 9/11.

Nothing is being 'quashed'. That is simply stupid.

neilmarr
That angers me, as do calls for my own self defence when I point out religious abominations by linking to various newspaper articles and express a personal opinion on them.
If it angers you that you are expected to defend your own opinions, then perhaps you should be more selective with which opinions you voice, and where.

neilmarr
But I would be pointedly criticised and my honesty and humanity called into question for placing my bets on a crazed Islamic group, and I just haven't the heart or the energy to try to justify myself against slurs on my character.
Same straw man. As much as you would like it to be the case, you have never been criticised for linking to and highlighting religious abominations, muslim or otherwise.

neilmarr
It is up to the religions themselves to take action, police themselves and show us an acceptable face: whether it's Catholics throwing pedophiles to the wolves, Evangelican Christians telling creationists to shut their mouths, Mormons telling their fundamentalists to play by the laws of their country, Hindus to stop their co-religionists forcing marriage on their children or the Muslim establishment and Muslimes in general to loudly denounce and disown those who kill for the Koran.
This is the point. Muslims in the UK who are trying to 'police themselves and show us an acceptable face' you have labeled as backward, misogynistic, barbaric and extreme. That is what you have been questioned on. Trying to pretend that didn't happen or is not the case, is dishonest (and cowardly). You were not questioned because you highlighted a case of a paedophile cleric. You were questioned on your statement that Indonesian society was 'bending over backwards' to accommodate him, and that your interpretation of the koran is more true than a billion others.

This is the problem of turning complex issues into polemic diatribe. We all know 'religion can be lethal'. Does it not matter to you that your attitude comes into conflict with intelligent (although I say it myself), informed atheists and stifles intelligent exchange of ideas?

Neil, the irony of you complaining the media is abdicating it's responsibility by not pointing the finger at islam before the literal and metaphorical dust has settled, while also complaining there is no muslim condemnation in the media, is an irony I expect is completely lost on you. Complaining that you have to read ALL the information before making a snap judgement is frankly hilarious. Maybe you should get all your news from Condell, he cuts straight to the chase, reinforces your prejudice and doesn't let fact get in the way of a good rant.

overview

Indian muslims

US muslims

Kashmiri muslims

British muslims

Even people who 'bend over backwards to accommodate pedophiles...
Edited by willie on 11/28/2008 07:57
 
willie
You know what? Fuck it.

Neil, I imagine this site is very important to you, I have no desire to ruin it for you or anyone else with pointless bickering over the same issue. I also have no desire to waste my time with people who put their damaged pride above all else. I'm also not the type to join 'clubs'. I'm atheist by default, nothing else. You, Neil, make it seem like a crusade. God knows there are enough ignorant bigots on the internet, including some who would like to be the voice of Atheism. I can do nothing about my lack of belief, but I can choose who I am associated with.

To be so patently correct about the lack of the supernatural does not give atheists universal intellectual and moral superiority over all others.

Best of luck with your site Skeeve. It's a fine thing you are doing. Cool
 
neilmarr
***Muslims in the UK who are trying to 'police themselves and show us an acceptable face' you have labeled as backward, misogynistic, barbaric and extreme***

I did? Can't remember that. This thread doesn't mention UK Muslims. Quite honestly, Willie, your reactions are much more predictable than my own and far less defensible.

***To be so patently correct about the lack of the supernatural does not give atheists universal intellectual and moral superiority over all others***

I don't agree that atheism is a lesser ideal than the acceptance of the supernatural, Willie. It is vastly superior to fantastical religion and what organised fantasy can drive people to do.I thought we'd grouped here to make that point.

***Does it not matter to you that your attitude comes into conflict with intelligent (although I say it myself), informed atheists and stifles intelligent exchange of ideas?***

It certainly would if it did, Willie.

***I can do nothing about my lack of belief, but I can choose who I am associated with***

I came in here later than usual today (lots of work) quite prepared to have to pull out myself. Think again. You are a reality check ... maybe I am too. We both belong in this group if only to make each other and our friends think again.

I would never in my wildest dreams suggest I didn't choose to associate with you.

Maybe we should both hang up our hats and leave it to the others.

I'm very tired, very sad, and not a little angry today with what an unmentionable band of bloodthirsty religious brigands are doing to my fellow man in the name of a non-existent god and don't really want to bandy niceties here on the cliff edge.

Must I remind you, Willie, that this thread reports to slaughter of more than one hundred innocent people, the maiming and injuring of 300 more, the holding hostage of other men, women and children in abject terror ... all in the name of Islam?

Do you really think this is the time to trifle around with the ideals of political correctness and whether atheism has a case when it opposes religions and their exteme manifestations?

Neil
 
seeker
Sadly willie it is easier to hate a group of people than to deal with social problems. Sorry to see you go but I do understand why.
 
neilmarr
Sorry folks, I've been giving this kind of exchange a lot of thought lately, and have decided that Willie and his ilk win.

Just count the bodies so far and it's patently obvious that bleeding-heart religious tolerance and politically correct pussyfooting is the future of mankind and that it's downright dangerous to speak out when there's nothing but 2,000 years of bloody fact to back you up and the mounting horrors of our 21st Century.

From here on in, I will oppose all religion -- in all its forms from 'moderate' to extreme -- privately to save causing offence to other supposed atheists on boards such as this, and so that I no longer have to face lines like this: there are enough ignorant bigots on the internet and this: reinforces your prejudice ... meant to apply to me of all folks. You should be bloody ashamed of yourself, young feller.

OK, call me thin-skinned. I am. My skin has been worn thin over six decades of meeting life eyeball-to-eyeball and becoming softer rather than harder as the years roll on.

My email address is by no means a secret and any personal messages (but not through this board) will be more than welcome.

But I won't be back here because I don't think AtheistsToday membership has lived up to our original promise of becoming worthwhile.

Any response to this particular post should be addressed to remaining members becaue I cerainly will not be around to read it.

Very best wishes to you all. I'll miss some of you.

Over and out.

Neil Marr
 
seeker
Its a good thing we are rationalists.
 
catman
I can only state that this is a genuine disaster. The site will be the poorer for it.Sad
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Max
Oh for god's sake. What was the age limit on this site again? Four?
 
Max
I am so tired of people with an ego big enough to declare their leaving this site in such an over the top, ridiculous, dramatic way. Considering I used to be the same way, I know. Now I know there truly are no adults, just large children.
 
derF
Max wrote:
Oh for god's sake. What was the age limit on this site again? Four?


Why? Don't you qualify?
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Norway Massacre The Lounge 5 07/30/2011 14:23
Navy now trumping up non-DADT charges to get rid of suspected gays LGBT 3 03/08/2011 11:09
Amish Sex Funny Zone 15 01/04/2009 15:18