 Sharda Janardhan Chitikar, left, grieves the death of her two children Daylife/AP Photo by Gurinder Osan
|
As I would expect, Daylife is doing the best job of collecting news photographs from the terror underway in Mumbai.
0
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
So we hate girls and we arent gays gives the chicken minded west to attack us? right? and who gave you the right to attack us when you should be minding your own business. Well I know the US was not here three centuries ago but who can forget the Crusade against Muslims? Even an ant can bite back if you try to squish it.
So as long as the West doesnt fix this mentality of policing the whole world, you will see more things like these. If you have some brain cells left and u will know that more muslims are killed than your own worthless western cows. So its we who suffer when someone from your side wants to save us from dictators, or push democrazy down our throats or wants to start a war on terror (for oil). Then dont come back crying like a baby on these forums when you get the whiplash from your own stupid mistakes morons.
#34 Dorker said, “Well I know the US was not here three centuries ago but who can forget the Crusade against Muslims? ”
Umm, and that is why they attack the U.S.?
Whoa, very psycho. These countries should be quarantined I agree. The borders sealed and no contact with the civilized world. That will solve the problem.
#33–Mustard==by your logic, religion and other “isms” should only be understood for their “formal statements” and not by their continuous effect?
Thats like saying the democratic party is for the working man or that the repugs are for small businesses.
Are you that retarded, or just part of the parade?
Zorkor==admit it. As you use “the West” what you really mean is everyone but Muslims and every Muslim not of your sect.
Your analogy to crushing an ant is a good one though.
#36 – Bobbolina
Or like saying that Atheists are peaceful, tolerant people, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc., not withstanding?
Yeah, kinda like that.
I know a lot of Christians, and a fair number of Muslims. Not a single one of them has expressed any interest in shooting abortion doctors, beating down homos, or taking hostages in Indian hotels.
Just as I’m sure most of your Atheist friends have no appetite for genocide.
Mustard==hah, hah. You actually agreed with me.
Dope.
#35 – Paddy-RAMBO
>>Dorker said, “Well I know the US was not here
>>three centuries ago but who can forget the
>>Crusade against Muslims? ”
>>
>>Umm, and that is why they attack the U.S.?
Umm, they didn’t attack us three centuries ago. I imagine they have racked up some reasons since that time.
#39 – Bobo
>>Dope.
You’re calling *ME* a dope?? Haw! That’s rich. Rich!!!
Mustard–I agree, overstatement. Phrase it then as subtly as appropriate until you don’t get the point again.
#42 – Bobo
>>Phrase it then as subtly as appropriate until
>>you don’t get the point again.
You’re a very clever fellow, Bobo. At least in your own mind, if nowhere else.
A “dope”?? That’s rich, boy. Rich! HAW!!
# 40 Mister Mustard said, “Umm, they didn’t attack us three centuries ago.”
Who said they did?
Mustard, ok, I’ll apologize one more time. It was my kneejerk response to someone who obviously wanted to disagree with what I posted but had, in consideration of their own private definition of atheism, in fact agreed with what I posted.
What would you call a person who does that?
Its a good example of why admitting simple truths and guiding your critical thinking with use/reference to objective standards of interpretation–ie, the dictionary.
The instigating issue is clear though. The mono-religions (as Misanthropic Scot likes to call them)are replete with passages calling on the faithful to kill the infidels. But when the sheep do rise up and act as the avenging tools of their vengeful and jealous god, we are supposed to think that is somehow anomalous? THATS awful dopey.
What is someone who espouses a dopey thought?
So, let me rephrase: Gee Mr Mustard, you sure are making a dopey comment on this religious issue.
I feel redeemed and saved.
#45 – Bobo
Snoooorrrrrre. Wake me up when you’re through entertaining yourself with your soi-disant cleverness.
You slept through too many of your science classes too.
1. So–you don’t think religions do in fact lead adherents to acts of violence they would not have otherwise committed?
2. How should one appropriately criticize anyone who follows the parts of the bible (the unerring word of god) that call for murdering offenders of just about everything?
The modern approach is to pretend those parts where written “for an earlier society” who weren’t as sophisticated as us. HAW!!!!!!!
Just write a fairytale that says yes and no to every moral issue and then tell people to believe. Very Useful.
Heh, heh.
I get frustrated when hearing these “discussions” where people are so committed to their viewpoint that they turn off their brain. Sometimes this leads to really stupid arguments to justify their own position or attack the other person’s. Other times it causes them to just completely disregard valid points the other side makes. Either make you look like a dolt.
On the side of the militant islamists: They have some really good points. The western world has frequently gotten involved in conflicts and inflamed things in the middle east because the condition was good for people over there but not for the “US” usually defined as US big business. A large portion of the blame for Saddam Hussein’s time as dictator can be VERY validly placed on the west. They actually had a democracy once, but the US at the urging of England took care of that little “problem” because it looked like the British corporations that controlled the oil at that time were going to lose. Had we not gotten involved at that time things would most likely be a lot more stable in the middle east right now. This is one example, but there are a lot more.
After WWII the west decided that the Jewish people needed a homeland and so the current state of Israel was born. Unfortunately, while people already lived there, no real thought was given to them. That would have been bad enough, but then Israel invaded their neighbor and pretty much took over completely obliterating the Palestine state. Since the west had just set up Israel, it would have looked bad if we had supported anyone against them so they got a free ride. Palestine got stepped on again. Now, anyone who says that any of this was done without provocation really isn’t looking into things very closely. There have been Islamic groups dedicated to the eradication of Israel since Israel was formed and have been very actively attacking Israel for as long as Israel has existed.
On the side of the western world: The western world is currently dependent on oil. Anything that threatens that supply is a threat to our national prosperity and security. You can’t threaten that and expect a mild response. The US will take strong action now and run the risk of looking bad, but maintain security while spinning the crap out of it to try to mediate the bad image. The only other option is to risk damage to a commodity that is basic to a huge part of our economy which would cause us to suffer far more for a much longer period of time. This will be the same no matter what administration is in office.
This is why we are involved in the Russia vs. Georgia conflict. The Russians are actually in the right! The people they are fighting for are Russians and want to be part of Russia. They are citizens of Russia, pay Russian taxes, speak Russian and have Russian passports. The problem with this is that part of Georgia contains an oil pipeline which if the Russians get will allow them to monopolize a chunk of the oil market which would be bad for the US.
So we’re not “right” and they’re not “wrong” any more than we are “wrong” and they are “right.” And religion in this case is not the only factor. It’s not even really the most significant one although it is frequently used as a motivator by both sides because it is an easy way to divide “us” from “them.” It’s too bad it works as well as it does because it leaves Muslims in the US in a distinctly unpleasant spot. When I hear about some of the discrimination that goes on it makes me want to scream “NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS YOU IDIOTS!!!!” And the Qur’an really doesn’t support terrorism any more than the Judeo-Christian Bible does. Both books have their good spots and bad spots depending on how you interpret them.
It’s also really frustrating when people start claiming that the founding fathers believed they were founding a Christian nation. One of the founding beliefs of this country was that a person should be free to choose their religion whether Christianity or some other religion entirely. The best documentation I’ve seen for this is here: http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html
#47 – Bobo
If you’re putting for that blather as “science”, you must have cheated on the science part of your GED test.
1. Nope. I think some people have a propensity towards violence, and it makes no difference if “God” tells them to do it, the Sheriff tells them to do it, or they just do it because they hate those who have spiritual satisfaction in their lives, when they themselves do not.
2. They should get spanked good and hard, just like anyone else who engages in acts of violence for other reasons. I personally do not know anyone who has killed because they read that they were supposed to in the Bible, so I haven’t faced that problem in my own dealings. You and I must move in different circles, religiously speaking. Either that, or you’re just talking out your ass. I’m tending towards the latter.
As for the rest of your disjointed diatribe, I can only assume that, if you are accurately portraying your thoughts about people who believe in something other than themselves and money, you must have cheated on the liberal arts portion of the GED test also.
Your knee-jerk antagonism towards anyone who does not share your religious opinions does not paint a very flattering portrait of the Atheist belief system.
>that Islamists wanted Obama elected and why. Not to mention the Russians.
Glad to see he’s getting some advance training with the current situations. I like this office of the president elect thing.
The West decided to give the Jews a homeland?
It’s called a homeland for a reason.
The real history is that the Jews already had a homeland, and the West gave it BACK to them, with blessings from Muslim leaders.
Really great to god work. He messed up again. Almighty my ass.