At least 48 people killed in suicide bombing at mosque in Pakistan
drahcir
ago it was mourners at a funeral. Islam is the only thing that these
various murderers have in common. The fact that many of you will not
acknowledge that there is a reason that only Muslims do these things
truly disgusts me. Islam simply does not fulfill the function of
providing sufficient moral foundation to prohibit these actions -
there are many aspects of Islam that actually encourage them, but you
will not see it because you are motivated by the same philosophy that
led to the bombings.
PESHAWAR, Pakistan =96 A suicide bomber blew himself up in a mosque
packed with hundreds of worshippers for Friday prayers in a town near
the Afghan border, killing at least 48 people and injuring scores
more, officials said.
The blast badly damaged the mosque in Jamrud, an area beset by Taliban
attacks as well as vicious feuds between rival tribes and militant
groups. Authorities did not immediately speculate on a motive.
Rising violence in Pakistan's northwest is fueling doubts about the
country's ability to counter Taliban and al-Qaida militants also
blamed for attacks in neighboring Afghanistan.
Television footage showed scores residents and police officers digging
frantically through the ruins of the white-walled mosque, whose roof
appeared to have caved in.
The bomber struck when about 250 people were attending Friday prayers,
said Tariq Hayat, the top administrator in the area.
He said rescuers had pulled 48 bodies from the rubble and predicted
the toll would likely rise further. Another 80 people were injured, he
said.
"We are struggling to find the survivors," Hayat told Geo television
by telephone.
Jamrud lies in the semiautonomous Khyber tribal region, where
militants have intensified attacks on trucks carrying supplies to NATO
and U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
While the motive for Friday's attack was not immediately clear,
feuding militant groups in the area have carried out a string of tit-
for-tat attacks, including attacks on mosques.
Zuiko Azumazi
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ff0ea720-5b99-466d...@z15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ...
> ... Seems like a bombing every day in Iraq killing innocents - a few days
> ago it was mourners at a funeral. Islam is the only thing that these
> various murderers have in common. ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Aren't the victims of these various acts of violence Muslims? Is Islam then
(according to your incoherent rationale) the only thing that the murderers
and victims have in common? Are we then trickily expected to falsely blame
these victims for being guiltless Muslims and innocently practicing Islam in
Iraq or elsewhere? Do you think these blameless Muslim victims, as you say,
"encourage" these actions simply because they innocently practice Islam? Did
these innocent Muslim victims become Islamic victims because they failed to
see that they were "motivated by the same philosophy" as their bombing
murderers? Aren't you in fact indiscriminately insinuating that these
harmless Muslim victims are guilty merely because they practice Islam? Isn't
this summation of yours then not totally ridiculous? Isn't that the salient
fact that your pronounced bigotry will sadly not acknowledge?
--
Peace
--
The "dialectical trick" of comparing one's own values with what one alleges
is the opponent's practices, a move almost guaranteed every time to make
you look good and make your opponent look bad. There is room for error in
two specific areas with this tactic: first, there is the logical fallacy of
comparing apples and oranges (the only valid comparison in this case is
between each side's values or between each side's practices), and second,
there is the possibility that your evidence about what the opponent's
practices actually are may be flawed (or at least distorted), especially if
you are relying on second-hand reports. [Norman Daniel - Islam and the West]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ff0ea720-5b99-466d...@z15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> <snip> ...> ... Seems like a bombing every day in Iraq killing innocents =
- =A0a few days
> > ago it was mourners at a funeral. =A0Islam is the only thing that these
> > various murderers have in common. ...
>
> <snip> ...
>
> Comment:-
> Aren't the victims of these various acts of violence Muslims?
Of course they are! Should that make a difference? Are Muslim lives
not worth as much as non-Muslim lives? What is your point?
Is Islam then
> (according to your incoherent rationale)
When you make such a statement in the future, it will have more effect
if you prove it incoherent and only THEN label it such. The way you've
done it, it's just empty verbiage.
the only thing that the murderers
> and victims have in common?
You seem to have misunderstood. Let's try again. I said
Seems like a bombing every day in Iraq killing innocents - a few days
ago it was mourners at a funeral. Islam is the only thing that these
various murderers have in common.
Do you see any mention of the victims? In my view, the religion of the
victims is irrelevant. "The only thing in common" referred to religion
OF THE VARIOUS MURDERERS, which transcends national, cultural, and
economic boundaries. My personal view is that killing is the
foundation of Islam, it was invented for conquest, and conquest is
impossible without killing, since the conquered usually aren't happy
about it. I began to read a history of Islam, don't ask me which one,
I don't remember, but it was by a very famous author. It just made me
so sick I had to stop reading - from the very outset, there was
violence - feuding and conquering, kill, kill, kill. And this author
is apparently sympathetic to Islam - I'm sure you know whom I mean.
When there's no one else around to kill, well, not a problem, we'll
kill some so-called Muslims. They deserve it because they're not REAL
muslims - they believe in Ali, so they're not Muslim, or they don't
believe in Ali, so they're not Muslims, or they believe in ali, but
not strongly enough, so they're not real Muslims, etc. etc. Do the
victims having been Muslims in your view mean that the killing doesn't
count or something? Or is it that since the victims were not
murderers, that in your mind means that Islam cannot have been the
common factor? If so, I'm sorry, you are not thinking clearly. Why not
say that since some people survive cancer, that cancer can't be the
common factor in people who die from cancer of the lung, brain, liver,
etc.
Are we then trickily expected to falsely blame
> these victims for being guiltless Muslims and innocently practicing Islam=
in
> Iraq or elsewhere? Do you think these blameless Muslim victims, as you sa=
y,
> "encourage" these actions simply because they innocently practice Islam?
I think the rationale you are seeking is clearly explained above - the
victims aren't "really" Muslims in the divinely inspired eyes of the
murderers, so their lives aren't worth anything - after all, God said
we should kill them wherever we find them, right?
Did
> these innocent Muslim victims become Islamic victims because they failed =
to
> see that they were "motivated by the same philosophy" as their bombing
> murderers?
Maybe they think they were, but the murderers didn't think they were.
See, bud, that's the problem with the whole "god" thing - I can murder
you, but it wasn't really me, I was just following God's orders. If we
could just get rid of God, then a person would have to accept
responsibility for his actions, and stuff like this wouldn't happen.
There's something about Allah, however, that's particularly virulent.
I think if I had all the gods up against the wall, he would be the
first to go. But not the last.
Aren't you in fact indiscriminately insinuating that these
> harmless Muslim victims are guilty merely because they practice Islam?
Not at all. It's not immoral to hold a knife, but it is to plunge it
into an innocent's heart. And remember, they only THINK they practice
Islam. In fact, they DON'T practice islam, in the eyes of the only God
who matters - the one whose followers have the guns - for now.
Isn't
> this summation of yours then not totally ridiculous?
You're asking a lot of questions, and I am trying in good faith to
answer them. But the nature of your questions is not inquisitive -
they are just charades, they are leading questions. That's because you
have not formed a coherent refutation to my post - you just have some
sort of vague feeling that since the mourners and prayers thought they
were Muslim, that somehow defeats my thesis. You'll have to do better.
Isn't that the salient
> fact that your pronounced bigotry will sadly not acknowledge?
Um, isn't what the salient fact? That the victims thought they were
Muslim? No, not at all - I hope I've tackled that sufficiently above.
You and I both know that the murderers would not murder people they
thought were "true" Muslims.
>
> --
> Peace
<snip so I don't get bounced>
drahcir
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq
BAGHDAD =96 A car bomb in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad killed at
least nine people and wounded 18 others on Tuesday, a day after a
deadly wave of bombings swept the Iraqi capital and raised concerns
that Iraqi forces were ill-prepared to secure the city as U.S. troops
thin out.
The Interior Ministry, meanwhile, warned of the likelihood of more car
bombings, saying measures were being taken to try to prevent them.
A parked car rigged with explosives went off around noon Tuesday on a
busy commercial street in the Shiite neighborhood of Kazimiyah, not
far from a mosque where midday prayers were under way.
No one claimed responsibility for the attack and police officials
would not speculate on possible targets. The officials spoke on
condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the
information.
The blast came as Baghdad was still reeling from Monday's bombings,
which killed 37 people and wounded more than 100 others in a stunning
sequence of attacks from one end of the city to the other. The
bombings targeted busy marketplaces, a police convoy ferrying a senior
security officer and laborers looking for work.
Those attacks also occurred in Shiite neighborhoods.
The government blamed supporters of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida and
suggested the attacks were timed for Tuesday's anniversary of the
founding of the late dictator's Baath party. They also happened ahead
of Thursday's sixth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad to U.S. forces
during the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam's regime.
Tensions are mounting in Baghdad and elsewhere, along with anger at
what is perceived as the government's failure to handle security as
U.S. forces are drawing down in the capital. Iraqis worry their own
forces may not be able to maintain order if Shiite-Sunni violence
flares again once the Americans leave.
The Interior Ministry spokesman warned Tuesday that Baghdad residents
should expect more bombings but authorities were stepping up measures
to prevent them.
Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said 400 explosives detection devices had
been sent to police and army checkpoints around the city to intercept
car bombs.
"We expect some increase in violence in the capital," he told The
Associated Press.
Many families of the victims from Monday's blasts were burying their
loved ones Tuesday in the holy city of Najaf, a traditional burial
site for Iraqi Shiites. Their grief mixed with anger, they openly
criticized the government for failing to prevent the bombings.
One mourner, Mustafa Radhi, buried his relatives =97 a young husband and
wife who died together with their newborn son at one of the market
bombings Monday.
"We hold the security forces responsible for what happened," Radhi
said. "Innocent people and children died because of their negligence."
Another mourner, Kamil Sabah, 25, criticized the government for
claiming to have curbed the attacks that long terrorized Baghdad.
"Where is the government now?" he said.
The party of former Prime Minister Ayad Alawi, a secular Shiite, said
stability was impossible without "isolating terrorists" and bringing
attackers to trial.
"We do believe that starting a real national reconciliation to isolate
terrorists and criminals has become a must to achieve stability in
Iraq," said the Iraqi National Accord party.
Zuiko Azumazi
news:ff0ea720-5b99-466d...@z15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
<snip> ....
> Seems like a bombing every day in Iraq killing innocents - a few days
> ago it was mourners at a funeral. Islam is the only thing that these
> various murderers have in common. The fact that many of you will not
> acknowledge that there is a reason that only Muslims do these things
> truly disgusts me. Islam simply does not fulfill the function of
> providing sufficient moral foundation to prohibit these actions -
> there are many aspects of Islam that actually encourage them, but you
> will not see it because you are motivated by the same philosophy that
> led to the bombings.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Rephrasing this Muslim scapegoating :-
"Seems like crime everyday in America killing innocents - a few moths ago it
was students attending college. Americanism is the only thing that these
various murderers have in common. The fact that many Americans will not
acknowledge that there is a reason that only Americans do these things truly
disgusts me. Americanism simply does not fulfill the function of providing
sufficient moral foundation to prohibit these actions - there are many
aspects of Americanism that actually encourage them, but Americans don't see
it because Americans are motivated by the same philosophy that led to these
mass killings."
In the same generalized vein, one might as well inanely ask : Why are
prisons in America filled with American criminals?; Why do some Americans
kill other Americans? ; Why do American terrorists have an extremist
right-wing philosophy that leads then to mass killings of Americans?
Why is it that bigoted commentators, in peaceful forums like SRI, cannot
understand or even comprehend that "terrorists", regardless of their
particular violent persuasion, have a common "terrorist" mindset?
Is this rephrased version of strident anti-Americanism coherent to
intelligent subscribers? Somehow, I don't think so. Then why is it when its
applied to others, in this particular case Muslims?
In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining
Terrorism that :-
<Quote> ...
On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It
is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied
to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and
would otherwise prefer to ignore. "What is called terrorism," Brian Jenkins
has written, "thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term
implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label
terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt
its moral viewpoint." Hence the decision to call someone or label some
organization "terrorist" becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending
largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause
concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example,
then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator,
the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at
the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism. ...
<Unquote> ....
--
Peace
--
There is in us a tendency to judge a race, a nation, or an organization
by its least worthy members. [Eric Hoffer]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
drahcir
<snip silliness>
Visit:
and you will see why your silly "rephrasing" doesn't work.
Zuiko Azumazi
<snip> ...
> <snip silliness>
<snip> ...
> http://www.iraqbodycount.org
> and you will see why your silly "rephrasing" doesn't work.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
What has this posted link of yours, which clearly states:- "Iraq Body Count
(IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003
military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by
US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others. ",
got to do with your ridiculous one-eyed analysis? Was this violent
'intervention' in Iraq that caused many unnecessary deaths amongst the
innocent Muslim civilian population then religiously or atheist inspired by
the said 'US-led coalition'?
Do you want to draw Muslim or sensible readers attention to the illegitimate
2003 military invasion of Iraq and the consequential deaths of innocent
Iraqi civilians by violent 'US-led coalition forces', as "Iraq Body Count"
relates? I speculate if the victims, their families, and friends artfully
distinguish between these unnecessary civilian deaths caused by violent
'US-led coalition forces", 'paramilitaries' or 'criminals'?
Don't you think that Huntington's famous adage is aptly pertinent in regard
to this subsequent banal IBC retort of yours : "The West won the world not
by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its
superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this
fact, non-Westerners never do."
I wonder if the hysterical or paranoid 'atheists' who decided to invade Iraq
in 2003 are "men of culture" or something far more violently base?
--
Peace
--
The "men of culture", with their developed faculty of reasoning, tend to
"give the hysterias of war and the imbecilities of national politics
more plausible excuses than the average man is capable of inventing".
[Reinhold Niebuhr]
Zuiko Azumazi
zuiko....@gmail.com
Count 1
> Don't you think that Huntington's famous adage is aptly pertinent in
> regard
> to this subsequent banal IBC retort of yours : "The West won the world not
> by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its
> superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this
> fact, non-Westerners never do."
Just because someone writes it doesn't mean you need to repeat it. This
quote is worthless for 2 reasons, the west hasn't won the world and
superiority at "organized violence" is the result of more advanced (I don't
use the word 'superior') ideas, values, and cultures.
So I would have to disagree. Huntington's quote is not 'aptly pertinent',
either in this thread or in any discussion anywhere.
When it comes to moral condemnation of 'organized violence', you do
understand the difference between terrorism and war, don't you? IE - there
is a sea of difference between the US's invasion of Iraq and Jihadist's
blowing up mosques. Both might be 'organized violence', but that observation
is meaningless because there is no real comparison between the two.
The questions for this thread that's relevant to this forum is to what
degree did the perpetrator's understanding of Islam inform and influence
their decision to slaughter these people? And what are Muslims doing -
proactively with quantifiable benefits - to counter this violent ideology
within their religion?
Waving our hands in front of these questions and trying to point attention
to some other conflict is not going to make them go away.
drahcir
order to protect your belief in that for which there is no evidence.
Were there a single bombing in America like those Muslims do to others
and each other nearly every day in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere,
it would make headlines and you know it. If anyone bothers to read the
details at Iraqbodycount.com, they will see that the vast majority of
the killing of civilians in Iraq is by terror, not by crime. You want
to cloud the difference between terrorism and crime because it suits
your purpose of trying to assert that Muslims are just like everyone
else. Your ridiculous rephrasing fails on every level. I am sure Iraq
has its share of crime and murder, but the penchant for Muslims to
kill en masse for religious/political purposes is unparallelled.
Denying that is one sure way to make sure it continues.
drahcir
Pakistan mosque bombing leaves 30 dead
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090605/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan
http://tinyurl.com/qmdcd6
While the objective observer will conclude that the fact that nowhere
in the world does this sort of thing happen regularly except for
Islamic countries means that there is something about Islam that
precipitates them, Mr. Azumazi will try to establish that everything
is equal, all cultures are equally violent, although there is
absolutely no evidence to support him.