Should NYU faculty and their dependent children receive full tuition remission?
The latest controversy surrounding NYU is the recent article published on Forbes.com by Stern professor Tunku Varadarajan, in which he uses the term "going Muslim" (derived from "going postal"), essentially equating Islam with insanity.
These insensitive remarks have riled many students, and while derided by WSN, this paper also stated in its editorial: "We believe that every viewpoint from students, faculty and administration is just as valid as any other."
This reasoning is not just severely flawed, but it is also dangerous. There seems to be a belief by WSN, and by President Sexton and Stern dean Thomas Cooley — who refuse to sanction Varadarajan — that all opinions are equally valid. While the validity of an opinion cannot be quantifiably measured, it is the case that we as a society and as individuals hold some opinions in higher esteem than others.
If an NYU faculty member said the Fort Hood shooter was justified in killing his colleagues, is that opinion just as valid as saying he wasn't? If an NYU faculty member said the 9/11 attacks were justifiable, is that opinion just as valid as saying they weren't? Any reasonable person would agree that such opinions are objectionable. And while one might argue that these are extremes compared to this professor's remarks, it shows that we do in fact draw a line somewhere. This line may be located differently from person to person, but there is nothing wrong with saying an opinion crosses the line and is objectionable. In short, while all people may be created equally, not all their opinions are.
As this paper reported, Cooley "would not rebuke Varadarajan's column because doing so would defy the notion of free speech." This is another error.
While I would fully support a person's right to voice the opinion that Osama bin Laden is a hero, this does not mean that I don't have a right to repudiate it. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. The First Amendment to our Constitution relates to laws passed by our government, and I certainly do not think that professor Varadarajan should be punished in any way by law for what he said. However, we have the right, as a community, to call his comment bigoted and insensitive. He has a right to free speech, but so do we, and we should not be afraid to use it.
In the words of Gandhi, "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." This is where I draw my line in the sand, and I hope others follow. I do not tolerate intolerance. Tolerating intolerance only breeds more intolerance. I do not believe it is an acceptable opinion to hold that anyone is less of a human being because of who he or she is. And I will not be afraid to call out anyone who says otherwise. True democratic spirit does not derive from sitting back and letting any moron talk his or her mouth off. We need to fight intolerant speech with better speech, not acceptance.
Sulayman
Nov 18, 2009
2:27 a.m.
Well-put. I think the majority of students agree that some opinions are beyond the pale.Examples; "the holocaust is a myth," "the shooting of abortionist Dr. Tiller was justifiable," etc. As you said, any reasonable person would agree that such opinions are objectionable. I'm trying to think of better examples than those you already gave, and I'm coming up short. You wrote your idea much better than I could.
Xinjiang
Nov 18, 2009
9:47 a.m.
To posit that shooting Dr. Tiller was somehow justified is on the same level as denying the Holocaust is a poor comparison for a number of reasons, the first of which is this: the Holocaust occurred. It's one of the most well-documented events in human history. It's fact. Denying it is a FACTUAL error.
Saying it was okay to shoot Dr. Tiller is a NORMATIVE statement, which is a whole lot stickier.
Ali
Nov 18, 2009
11:04 a.m.
"However, we have the right, as a community, to call his comment bigoted and insensitive."
How is professor's Varadarajan's comments bigoted if it is true?
Insenstive? Possibly. But I would think people would be more concerned about those killed and critically wounded by Hasan than being "PC". Thanks to Hasan, and the religion of peace as that is what drove him to it, there are now kids without dads, widows, parents without sons and daughters, a husband whose pregnant wife (and child) are dead. Meanwhile everything I read is about how "sensitive" we need to be to those who are creating these mind-numbing terrorist acts over, and over, and over again.
I like the term "Going Muslim". Yes it's rough, but it's also brutally honest, and caputres in two words what this is all about. The professor should copyright it, before some Madison avenue "Mad Man" type does it for him.
Xinjiang
Nov 18, 2009
11:53 a.m.
(the following is sarcasm)
I totally agree with this dhimmiwatch-addicted right-wing wingut. Let's label stealing "going black", ponzi scams "going Jewish"! These are totally reasonable and sane things for people to do
"Thanks to Hasan, and the religion of peace as that is what drove him to it, there are now kids without dads, widows, parents without sons and daughters, a husband whose pregnant wife (and child) are dead."
Bush said that his Christian God told him to start both Iraq and Afghan wars, which has lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Someone better call starting pointless, imperialistic wars "Going Christian", because it's not like some of the bloodiest wars in history were prosecuted by and committed by Christians
Bill
Nov 18, 2009
12:31 p.m.
I'm always shocked by the fact that it needs to be pointed out that not all Muslims are terrorists. By painting all Muslims as being on the verge of committing mass murder, you denigrate a whole population of people, creating a culture of antagonism and distrust in the process. It's the foundation of a negative society and not one I want to live in. There are people who have lost family members due to the actions of radical Christians, Jews, and other religions as well.
It is also wise to keep in mind that the Fort Hood shooting was an exceptionally rare occurrence. All Muslims do not need to be held responsible for this insane man's actions just like I should not be held responsible for an insane atheist's actions.
You should be ashamed of your comment.
Grotesque
Nov 18, 2009
1:21 p.m.
Well done Bill.
New terms are also coined to honor this moron:
1) “Going TunKu”: Highest form of bigotry
2) Tunkuism: Bigotry for Sale: when so called scholars are
becoming fawning sycophants and engage in thought prostitution.
tunku's main objective is to vilify Muslims by smearing their belief system to prove their point. Nevertheless, to give this fawning sycophant’s a taste of his own venom, then we can reference Kedar Joshi’ (ex-Hindu) argument in the “The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita” as bases for establishing that Hinduism is terrorism and concludes that: “the message of Bhagavad-gita is to fight, if necessary with violent means, for the protection of the religion, say Hinduism; to annihilate those whose beliefs and practices are other than Hinduism, which would include atheists, free thinkers, other religious people like Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. That is why Hinduism is terrorism. (For more info please consult my article 'The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita'.)”.
Can we use this argument and the atrocities/massacres Hindu terrorist have committed against Christians and Muslims, to conclude the same about Hinduism? If we do, then we have “gone tunku” too!
Equally perplexing and disgusting that this moron (Vardarajan) used to write for the Wall Street Journal. In 2005, its editorial page described American Muslims as “role models both as Americans and as Muslims” (”Stars, Stripes, Crescent,” August 24, 2005). Nothing of this kind comes out in his essay!
This bigot thinks we are a bunch of idiots easily programmed to hate and engage us in more clashes with Muslims. When we are done, then he will find us another villain nation/religion to hate.
Ali
Nov 18, 2009
1:59 p.m.
Bill,
First let me thank you for your constructive and sincerely felt reply. I mean it.
That said I do not believe I suggested all Muslims are extremists. What I have tried conveying is that --and this is only my opinion--if it is only a "small minority" of Muslims who are waging Jihad they sure are a VERY active "small minority". I have also tried conveying some facts about Moahmed's actions when he was alive, as well as some facts about the Koran and Hadiths.
Let me turn all of this on its head so as to try to gain some perspective. How does anyone really know it is only a small minority of Muslims who are extremists? I know after 9//11 Muslims were dancing in the streets in the Middle East and the silence out of the American Muslim community was practically deafening. When one looks objectively (if this is possible) at the Muslim world where do you see leaders who are moderate? How does one explain the Arab League's warm embrace of the genocidal leader of Sudan? These people are the leaders of countries where hundreds of millions live. Does this seem like it encourages moderation, or extremism? Show me sone facts about "a small minority' instead of heresay and then I will admit I am wrong. Just to reiterate I have not said all Muslims are extremists. I have just questioned the percentage of Muslims who fall into that category as being a "small minority".
Rightly or wrongly I feel I am doing a service here by raising important questions. Islam is a very important religion and its core principles need to be looked at by all of us before we accpet the white-washed version of it we are spoon-fed every day.
Finally I do think the term "Going Muslim" is no less accurate than talking about the Irish and drinking, or the Jews and lawyers, or Italians and women, whatever. It is a generalization that, like it or not, contains a lot of truth.
And, finally, finally what I find really offensive is when people use words like "apartheid", "Nazi" or "Holocaust" in connection to Israel. If you want to discuss shame and shameful words than I can't imagine a better place to start than with these words and how they are used.
In any case, I mean it when I say I don't necessarily agree with your comments, but I do apprecaite the way you expressed them: honestly and directly.
Bill
Nov 18, 2009
5:41 p.m.
It doesn't make a difference if radical Muslims are in the majority or not: the problem is with branding ALL Muslims as radicals. When you say "going Muslim" it implies that that is the entirety of Muslim behavior. To be Muslim is to be insane. But this is not always the case. In the process, you hurt a lot of people and you turn some who don't know any better against innocent citizens.
It is perfectly legitimate to be concerned about radical Islam (or radical any religions) in the world. And it is true that radical Islam is the most rampant in the most dangerous in the world today (centuries ago it might have been Christianity, like during the Crusades and Inquisition). But it is possible to voice your concerns and objections to this behavior without painting all Muslims as being of this sort. And by using this sort of language, you are being intolerant just like radical Muslims (to a much lesser extent of course, but intolerant nonetheless).
As an atheist, I believe that all religious beliefs are non-sensical. But I also believe in tolerance, and I understand the importance of living in a tolerant society. So long as one's personal religious beliefs do not affect me or anyone else in any negative way, I have no problem with them. It is this thinking that leads to a more positive society where everyone can GET ALONG. And when people get along, people are happier for it.
RedHogg
Nov 18, 2009
3:56 p.m.
We should give this topic no time whatsoever and have the Muslim explain what would make a Muslim Kill American in America? And how do we prevent the Muslim from attacking Americans.
Should we deport them? What should we do? Can they be trusted at all and what should we do if this event happnes again in America?
Too bad the Muslims did not like what what was written we see no harm done, no Muslim is in the hospital stemming from what was written so get over it. What I do see is American who have given their lives because of some confused Muslim and I am sick of it. Now they attempt to distract us with this nonsense .... get over it
Its obvious Muslims are having some serious issues with how America runs, in American we are allowed to say or express how we feel even if you dont like it, and in American one religion does not attack Americans because they are Americans. We need to take a good hard look at the Muslim pop. and insist that they get with how America works or get out.
Andrew
Nov 18, 2009
7:09 p.m.
Who is "they"? The writer of the column and other people who were offended? So ONE American-born Muslim goes on a shooting spree and now all Muslims to leave? Are you going to be demanding white people get out when the next Ted Bundy gets caught?
What about the active right-wing militias that have a big problem with "how America works" and are training and stockpiling weapons to overthrow the government? Should they be deported to whatever country their ancestors came from?
Redhogg
Dec 25, 2009
11:04 a.m.
To your question on should they be deported my answer would be a resounding yes! The Muslim have no inate right to be in America and if they indend to violate our laws that is but one more reason for their deportation.
I am not concerned about the nor will I be distracted by who you term the right-wing militias who you say are training ... to overthrouw the government. This conversation is about the Muslim and I am tired of the tricky Muslim always trying to change the topic.
Dont change the topic!
The discussion is about the Muslim and all the faults that come with them and how a non-muslim society should deal with them and no one else.
Ali
Nov 18, 2009
6:32 p.m.
Bill, you are clearly a skilled debater but are obviously confused by the nature of the radical Islamists and Jimmy Carters who squashed thought and kill millions if not billions of people.
Perhaps this video, created by the greatest and most respected Imam in Britain threatens violence against women and promises to forever control them will clear some things up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Andrew
Nov 18, 2009
6:36 p.m.
Since Hindus are responsible by far for the most suicide attacks over the last 30 years and possibly the most brutal civil war (in Sri Lanka), Prof. Varadarajan should've suggested the much more accurate label of "Going Hindu" for terror attacks.
Andrew
Nov 19, 2009
3:24 a.m.
Ali there is so much wrong with all the stuff you said I am only going to deal with a paragraph of it:
"I know after 9//11 Muslims were dancing in the streets in the Middle East and the silence out of the American Muslim community was practically deafening."
This is complete BS. In the streets of TEHRAN there was a gigantic candlelight vigil for the victims of 9/11. 60,000 Iranians had a moment of silence for the victims during a soccer match. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5377914.stm). There were some disgusting reactions which you can see on youtube, but honestly, how do you expect Palestineans to react to an attack on American soil when they are being shelled everyday and having their homes bulldozed with full American backing?
Just because the American Muslim community wasn't out calling for the blood of Saddam Hussein doesn't mean their "silence was deafening".
" When one looks objectively (if this is possible) at the Muslim world where do you see leaders who are moderate?"
Perhaps in the three largest Muslim countries in the world of Turkey, Egypt, and Indonesia and their combined population of almost 400million people?
Note: Islamists only entered the Egyptian government after the Bush administration forced Mubarak to unban the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist political parties.
Also, India is a moderate democracy which has population of over 100million Muslims, more than live in Pakistan.
"How does one explain the Arab League's warm embrace of the genocidal leader of Sudan?"
It's not easy but it isn't like the US has ever had any problem with genocidal leaders when they're in line with our geopolitical goals (see Pakistan in East Bangledesh, Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, every country in Latin America during the 1980s). I guess Western Democracy is evil then?
Steve
Nov 21, 2009
6:21 p.m.
"How do you expect Palestinians to react to an attack on American soil when they are being shelled everyday....".
What? What exactly are you referring to? When and in what context were Palestinians shelled daily? And why would that justify rejoicing over citizens being killed in an office tower. Only the bin ladin-esque argument that capitalism and its participants is responsible for everything wrong in the world, beginning with the lack of a true Sharia-run middle east, could "justify" such a reaction. And if that doesn't a US citizen, then what should?
Felsen Stark
Nov 19, 2009
10:32 a.m.
"We need to fight intolerant speech with better speech, not acceptance."
Agreed.
In regards to Islamic text that define who is a Muslim and who is an unbeliever, from the eyes of an "unbeliever", much of the texts are intolerant speech and we need to discuss these openingly and honestly.
What would have made more sense, dealing with worker/management realtionships by the United States Postal Service and union after the shooting incidents that lead to the saying "going postal" or going after the person who coined the saying?
Steve
Nov 21, 2009
6:13 p.m.
The reaction of NYU's Islamic community, and many of the morel liberal students shows an unsurprising double standard here. One man's opinion in a magazine prompted numerous emails about possible Islamaphobia taking hold on campus, as well as a need for NYU to condemn Varadarajan's opinion, written in a private magazine. But any connections between Islam and the shooting are taboo. Lets look at the facts.
A Muslim, apparently acting in response to his feelings about his religion, after being indoctrinated by an Imam in Viriginia, is responsible for the massacre in Texas. If that is not troublesome- that US Islamic centers can be contact points for the brainwashing of future terrorists, then why is one man writing his opinion in a paper taken to be indicative of the opinions of the School he teaches at, or the students who attend it? Or conversely, if his thoughts on paper were the source of such concern, then why are the brutal actions of someone else a taboo topic that we are not allowed to be concerned with?
Not too suggest, God forbid, that all Muslims are like a few extremists. But to ignore an alarming trend of Mosques being used to brainwash people into believing that they can perform God's will by killing, even if this trend is primarily occurring in the middle east, while being up in arms about an opinion seen as being inaccurate being printed in a magazine, is certainly hypocritical. And not to be equated with the denial of factual information.
Xinjiang
Nov 23, 2009
12:46 p.m.
"A Muslim, apparently acting in response to his feelings about his religion, after being indoctrinated by an Imam in Virginia, is responsible for the massacre in Texas."
I don't think it's as clear cut as 'Allah made me do this', the guy had a history of mental illness and depression, some of which stemming from the racism he encountered on base.
"Not too suggest, God forbid, that all Muslims are like a few extremists."
But you're missing the point. He conflated all Muslims with this guy, by identifying ALL MEMBERS OF THIS RELIGION (which is, by the way, over a billion people) with shooting a dozen people - e.g. "Going Muslim." This is a lot like calling a spate of looting "Going African-American".
Obviously terrorism is a very real threat and we should definitely be able to talk about it freely. Nobody is saying, "No-one should discuss the butchery at Fort Hood." What they are saying is, "We can discuss this without being bigots."
Ali
Nov 24, 2009
6:21 p.m.
When someone says "Going Postal" they do not mean all crazy people "Go Postal" only that it happens oftn enough to coing the term.
This is no different than coining the term "Going Muslim". The term "Going Muslim" is the perfect turn of phrase, a descriptive and accurate term to describe a pattern of Muslim behaviors that are similar to "Going Postal".
The phrase was not meant to describe "all" Muslims, but was only meant to characterize the FACT that what happened at Fort Hood is a pattern frequently observed of Muslim's behavior. Denying this is like denying the sun sets in the west, Xinjiang.
Ali
Nov 26, 2009
11:54 a.m.
Hindus...whoops I meant Muslims doing their thing by "Going Muslim".
"Russian officials beheaded in N. Caucasus-Ifax," from Reuters, November 24:
MOSCOW, Nov 24 (Reuters) - A police investigator and a court bailiff were found beheaded in a car trunk in Russia's mainly Muslim region of Kabardino-Balkaria, Interfax said on Tuesday, underscoring spreading violence on Russia's southern flank.
The killings follow a spate of attacks on power stations and police posts in Kabardino-Balkaria, which is close to the Ingushetia region where rights group say Islamist militants and government forces are effectively at war.
The two beheaded men were discovered in a Mercedes late on Monday in the town of Chegem, about 10 km (six miles) north of the regional capital Nalchik, the news agency reported, citing law enforcement services....
Ali
Nov 27, 2009
11:53 a.m.
Andrew,
Is the following article an example of "Going Muslim"?
Sharia Alert: "Christian girl, 16, gets 50 lashes for wearing 'indecent' knee-length skirt in Sudan," from the Daily Mail, November 27:
A 16-year-old Sudanese girl was lashed 50 times after a judge ruled her knee-length skirt was indecent, her family said today.
The mother of Christian teenager Silva Kashif said she is to sue police and the judge who imposed the sentence under Islamic shariah law.
Saying she only learned about her daughter's conviction after she had been lashed, mother Jenty Doro said the family's religion should have been taken into account.
Kashif, whose family comes from the south Sudanese town of Yambio, was arrested while walking to the market near her home in the Khartoum suburb of Kalatla last week, Doro told Reuters.
'She is just a young girl but the policeman pulled her along in the market like she was a criminal. It was wrong,' said Doro....
Ali
Nov 29, 2009
10:32 a.m.
Andrew,
Why are authorities speculating that the bomb that caused Russia's train deaths was planted by Islamists? Is this a prejudice, or simply common sense based on Muslims history of "Going Muslims"?
Why is it your argument that Hindus are the more likely perpetrators not even up for consideration by even the "way-out-there" crowd? Once again your convoluted BS is proven to be nothing but more garbage from your warped PR dump.
Andrew
Nov 30, 2009
12:12 p.m.
Maybe because I'm not trying to make a serious argument that terrorism is a Hindu phenomenon but instead show how ridiculous it is to attribute it solely to Muslims, when another group is more prone to terrorism? How does few people agreeing with me prove anything? By your logic, doesn't the fact that everyone on this board thinks you're an imbecile prove that you're wrong?
Authorities speculated that a Muslim committed the Oklahoma City and Atlanta Olympics bombings. Did they? No. Does that prove anything? Not really, except that suspicion always immediately goes to Muslims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War_crimes_and_terrorism#Massacres - Are these examples of Russians "Going Russian" on Muslims? E.g. launching, "ballistic missile strikes on the central Grozny killed at least 137 people, mostly civilians, and injured hundreds. The missiles hit the city's main marketplace, a maternity hospital and a mosque."
Do you have any idea what the Russians do to the Muslim people under their control? Any? Do you remember Afghanistan in the 1980s, when they were cutting off Muslims' heads and stuffing them into the trunks of cars? This was back when the people who would become the Taliban were "freedom fighters"...people have a short memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre - Is this an example of "Going American"?
Islamist control of Ethopia is bad. I agree with you. No one disagrees with you. I have no idea what your point is.
Also you are definitely brain damaged if you think I actually work at a PR firm for Hamas. I make all my money producing youtube videos like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Luca
Dec 01, 2009
1:44 a.m.
who do you mean we, not all of 'we' are afraid to criticize professor Varadarajan, but more essentially, not all of 'we' think prof. Varadarajan crossed that much of a line in the first place. do you have a poll or sth? man, i feel stupid even to be spelling this out, but i'll try anyway; what. you. think. is. NOT. what. everyone. else. thinks. okey? whose thought is more correct, as you say in how there are degrees in opinions, yes i agree, should be debated before determined, and thats what i assume you 'tried' to do here, but im telling you, you failed immediatley by saying you're view is right WITHOUT the debating (i.e. WITH a feeble arguement) ^^;;;;sorry bout that. btw, you gotta be objective you display the same american arrogance that many people who are not american consider as the root cause that brought nine eleven unto yourselves. thats right, so im not gonna pretend i'm not an international student i know how to sorrow over the deaths of three thousand people, but grief should not blind objectivity maybe i strayed from the incident itself but mr.Santagata's basics were so whack i just had to ramble.......
Ali
Dec 02, 2009
8:45 a.m.
One accurate way to describe the following is to say those who committed these atrocious murders have "Gone Muslim".
Page last updated at 11:11 GMT, Wednesday, 2 December 2009
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
North Caucasus group in Russia train bomb web claim
Kavkazcenter.com has been known to carry accurate claims of attacks
A North Caucasus Islamist group has claimed responsibility for a bomb that killed 26 people on a Moscow-to-St Petersburg train, a website says.
The website claim on Kavkazcenter.com said last Friday's attack was carried out by the "Caucasian Mujahadeen" on the orders of its leader, Doku Umarov.
He is described as one of Russia's most wanted rebels, but it was not possible to verify the claim's authenticity.
Moscow had earlier described the Nevsky Express attack as an act of terrorism.
Doku Umarov, a Chechen, is considered the leader of the Islamist insurgency in the North Caucasus. He says he is fighting to expel Russian forces, and to turn the region into an Islamic emirate.
Ali
Dec 03, 2009
8:34 a.m.
Andrew,
Is the following (today's news) an example of Muslims "Going Muslim"?
Page last updated at 12:44 GMT, Thursday, 3 December 2009
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Somalia ministers killed by hotel suicide bomb
Advertisement
The injured from the blast are taken to hospital
A suicide bomber disguised as a woman has killed at least 19 people including three government ministers in the Somali capital Mogadishu.
Officials say the attack hit a hotel in the city during a crowded graduation ceremony for medical students from a local university.
Witnesses said the attack appeared to have targeted government officials.
Islamists are fighting the UN-backed government, which controls small pockets of territory in the country.
Ali
Dec 03, 2009
2:13 p.m.
Andrew,
Is the following news item from today an example of a Muslim "Going Muslim"?
Dec 3, 2009 18:32 | Updated Dec 3, 2009 18:37
Police: Suicide bomber kills five in Saddam Hussein's hometown
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Iraqi officials say a suicide bomber killed at least five people in Saddam Hussein's hometown, including the chief of riot police.
A police official said the blast Thursday in Tikrit killed Lt. Col. Ahmed al-Fahal, two of his bodyguards and two civilians....
Andrew
Dec 04, 2009
4:06 a.m.
No, the terrorist attacks in Iraq are emblematic of failed US foreign policy. I don't even understand what you're trying to argue, that Muslims have committed a lot of suicide bombings? Ok, I agree with you. Are you also trying to say that Africa is a violent place? WHOA OMG YOU BLEW MY MIND!!!! Good thing I am completely ignorant of the last 200 years of history...though I did read about a couple genocides that the Germans and Belgians committed there. Were they "going European" on the Herreros and the Congolese? These weren't isolated incidents like suicide bombings, but organized national policies of extermination with thousands of participants.
What about Americans use of White Phosphorous in the Battle of Fallujah, doesn't that show that we are fundamentally evil, or something?
Did Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer go white middle aged male? Did John Wayne Gacy go gay? Did the Green River Killer go Trunk Driver? That guy killed 70+ people...
Ali
Dec 04, 2009
8:53 a.m.
Andrew (the apologist for all things Islam),
Is the following an example of Muslims "Going Muslim"?
Dozens dead in Pakistan mosque attackDecember 4, 2009 8:24 a.m. EST
Pakistan mosque attackSTORY HIGHLIGHTS
Several explosions followed by gunfire heard inside the mosque
Mosque is frequented by retired and serving military officials
November 2 attack in Rawalpindi saw suicide bomber target a bank
Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Militants armed with guns and grenades attacked a mosque during midday prayers in Rawalpindi on Friday, killing dozens of people, authorities said.
At least 36 people were killed and another 45 were wounded, said Gen. Athar Abbas, a Pakistani military spokesman. Rawalpindi's police chief said 40 were killed.
Four militants carried out the attack, Abbas said. Two were suicide bombers who blew themselves up inside the mosque; the other two were shot and killed by security forces outside the mosque.
"These are terrorists who killed innocent worshippers," he said.
Elderly citizens, children and military officials were among the dead, Abbas said....
Boshem
Dec 04, 2009
3:58 p.m.
"Going American"?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hjBsPCIjXsT_dtwKlzzkvHgiks7QD9CCJVAG1
WATERTOWN, N.Y. — A Fort Drum military policeman accused of stabbing his two Army buddies to death has been arraigned on second-degree murder charges.
Andrew
Dec 05, 2009
6:22 p.m.
Ali, if I am a Muslim apologist, then you are an apologist for white male serial killers since you've failed to condemn white men as a whole.
You aren't going to convince anyone of anything just by posting news stories. Would posting stories about IRA bombings during The Troubles show that all Irish people and Catholics are terrorists? Actually try and engage in a debate with me.
Ali
Dec 05, 2009
11 p.m.
"Try to engage in a debate with me."
OK. Let's go.
Why is it each of the following countries is demographically 95% Muslim or greater?
Specifically, why is this the case when Islam came to these countries long after Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Zoroastrians, Animsts and others lived there before Islam invaded their lands? Is this a reflection of Islam's tolerance and compassion toward others?
1) Saudi Arabia 100% Muslim
2) Afghanistan 100% Muslim
3) Somalia 100% Muslim
4) Iran 98% Muslim
5) Turkey 98% Muslim
6) Libya 97% Muslim
7) Pakistan 95% Muslim
Why are these countries not considered "Apartheid" states, when Israel is (by Muslims and Muslim apologists like you) even though Israel's non-Jewish population is around 25% with most of that being Muslims?
And why are Muslims in an uproar over the Swiss vote banning additional minarets when Saudi Arabia will not allow any visible signs of other religions including people simply wearing crosses? Is this simply one more example of Muslim's endless hypocrisy?
Andrew
Dec 07, 2009
9:01 p.m.
Wikipedia says "Debate or debating is a formal method of interactive and representational argument". You haven't really tried to interact with me at all, but instead of just posted a series of ridiculous premises that don't represent anything other than how paranoid/insane you are. Where have I ever argued that Islam is more moderate and compassionate than any other religion?
FYI, the definition of an apartheid state is not one where were the majority rules with an iron fist. It is a legally segregated society where members of a certain group are treated as second-class citizens. Following your definition, Apartheid-era South Africa was not an apartheid state because it was only about 10% white. Neither was the Jim Crow South at the peak of KKK and racial violence, since the population was ~40% black.
There is an outcry over Switzerland banning minarets because it is a modern secularist liberal democracy and a signatory to a number of EU treaties which guarantee its citizens basic religious freedoms. This law is a clear violation of EU treaties and will be overturned soon. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is a Islamic state with a medieval system of governance (this is with 100% backing of the US State Department for the last 60 years). It isn't legitimate to compare the two countries. No Swiss would want to be held to the standard of Saudi Arabia, and is bound by international treaty to act as a modern society.
leave a comment
Comments from unregistered users will appear once they are approved. Log in to have your comment show up immediately.