Another Afghan School Poisoned — 160 Girls Hospitalized 474
An anonymous reader writes "Back in April, we discussed news of an anti-education attack on an Afghani school, which poisoned 150 Afghan schoolgirls. Now, a hospital in the same province has admitted 160 more girls who seem to have suffered a similar attack. 'Their classrooms might have been sprayed with a toxic material before the girls entered, police spokesman Khalilullah Aseer said. He blamed the Taliban. The incident, the second in a week's time, was reported at the Aahan Dara Girls School in Taluqan, the provincial capital. The girls, ages 10 to 20, complained of headaches, dizziness and vomiting before being taken to the hospital, said Hafizullah Safi, director of the provincial health department. More than half of them were discharged within a few hours of receiving treatment, Safi said. The health department collected blood samples and sent them to Kabul for testing.'"
Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:2, Insightful)
What does this have to do with /.?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What does this have to do with /.?
absolutely nothing.
Proof that the original /. is dead and gone and all we are left with is this crap-pile of AJAX and bad design.
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you've forgotten the old Slashdot slogan: "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". This kind of stuff was on Slashdot since before I had a Slashdot user ID.
The thing that's changed on Slashdot is that there are now professional Slashdot astroturfers working for big tech companies.
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:5, Funny)
You know what, I wholeheartedly concur. But before I extrapolate on your wisdom, let me first turn your attention to how I managed to successfully evade a viral attack with the help of an incredible product, MyCleanPC...
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I read Slashdot not because I don't care about the non-tech world, but because I don't care about the pointless drivel that fills most "news" sources. I don't care about the some bimbo's annulled wedding, or the color of a pop star's shoes, or the 12 most adorable breeds of puppies. I want to know news about my interests, and things that will have a lasting effect on the world I live in. I want news for nerds and stuff that matters. I read Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
I read Slashdot because I only want to consume one important story every hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you've forgotten the old Slashdot slogan: "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". This kind of stuff was on Slashdot since before I had a Slashdot user ID.
I too was reading here back in the 90's and can't say I can recall non-tech articles of Fear and Loathing with any frequency.
The thing that's changed on Slashdot is that there are now professional Slashdot astroturfers working for big tech companies.
This comment is of course a better answer to my comment above which has already been labeled as troll, which I suppose is deserved given it's brevity and offtopic closure. So, in light of that I will attempt to give a better answer why this article has no place on /. :
This is not tech news, and does not 'matter' at all to the tech community, period. I can read this immediately on an
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I just responded to a troll...
Re: (Score:3)
This place is a ghost town compared to what it was 5 years ago.
Hogwash. Five years ago I seldom saw topics with 500 comments, now there are usually several every day. In fact, if the story's been posted for more than a few hours it doesn't even make much sense to comment unless you're sure of at least a +3, because nobody will see the comment.
Ten years ago it was really deserted, but slashdot still slashdotted sites (probably because servers were a bit more primitive then).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:5, Insightful)
If I had mod points today, I would have modded you up. How does this relate to tech or IT?
Well I have moderator points.. /. is in a word "education".
What this has to do with
The foundations of tech is education and open knowledge.
Those that wage war on education wage war on us all.
In this micro slice of the world that is /. we tolerate a lot. We enjoy rants and debate.
This article shies a light on a part of the world where intolerance is the norm and expected.
Pay attention.... This is important.
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Education->Science->Technology
I think it's safe to assume that nerds would support efforts to educate people, and attempts to stop that education.
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Geeks and nerds often care about education related issues, which 'we would rather kill our females then let them learn to read' falls under.
Yes, as a geek/nerd, I care about education issues, social issues, and civil rights issues. Most of the geeks/nerds that are in my social circles are also.
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with /.?
Clearly, it's because slashdot can't resist an opportunity for a nice flame war. See also: any thread regarding Homeland Security, or Climate Change, or President Obama. Simply mention one of these subjects, and regardless of the nerd/tech angle, you will have a 1,000 comment story by the end of the day. And so it goes, that the subjects that get huge responses (and huge traffic) get posted often. You need to ask, "why do /.ers read and reply to this with great fervor?"
Re: (Score:2)
What does this have to do with /.?
That's right - girls aren't important to you as they are not allowed in your mothers basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot was a hub for information during the 9/11 attacks because just about every news site out there was, forgive the pub, slashdotted.
What did THAT have to do with tech? Nothing... it was simply relevant.
Seriously, I think the anti-science and anti-fact agenda touches us a little bit more than anyone else. The "nerds" are going to be first against the wall when reasoning is made illegal.
If this burns Karma, so be it: there are parallel movements to the Tailban in the U.S. It's worth keeping an eye on
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, it fits in both. "News for nerds" does not require it to be IT or tech. Nerds can be and are interested in other things.
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:5, Insightful)
I assume the education slant would appeal to nerds. Nerds should be pro-education and should be concerned about literally violent anti-education movements.
Re: (Score:3)
... or pro violent-education movements. Some people just learn differently.
Re:Clearly a very serious issue, but (Score:5, Insightful)
"... to draw in all the jackasses for a bit."
I don't think the Taliban read Slashdot.
Religious extreme (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is exactly where the US could be heading if the current 50% of the population gets any stronger. Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany. If we let nutcases like that become president, which a large number of people supported, this will be common in the US as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Though no good is going to come Goodwinning this early... ok, not 'this early', ever.
Christian Nation? (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is exactly where the US could be heading if the current 50% of the population gets any stronger. Rick Santorum was as scary to the US as Hitler was to Germany. If we let nutcases like that become president, which a large number of people supported, this will be common in the US as well.
Most Americans do not really believe in religion, and only identify with Christianity because they think they should, and the certainly are not Muslims.
The truth is that while many people are vaguely âoespiritualâ, most people no longer attend church regularly if at all, and only a small percentage of so-called âoeChristiansâ in this country can tell you anything at all about the Bible, old or new.
There are people who bleat about this being a âoeChristian Nationâ, but statistically, factually, it isnâ(TM)t so. I donâ(TM)t think it can even be proven that we are a âoecertainly not a Muslim nationâ, either.
We are mostly agnostic.
Re:Christian Nation? (Score:4, Funny)
my belief prevents me from believing your statements.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
He says he supports gay marriage as a personal opinion but he quickly notes it should be left up to the states -- which is really no different than any of the republican candidates when it comes down to what will get done.
No, it is different, and the fact that your position is "as long as I get what I want I dont give two craps about what the Bill of Rights says about state sovereignty" is part of the reason the federal government is such a monster today.
Try to remember that there is a REASON we have separate states, rather than one gigantic collective.
Re:Religious extreme (Score:5, Insightful)
Germany had its economy crushed by the massive reparation payments [bbc.co.uk] imposed on it after WWI, primarily at the instigation of the French, as a part of the treaty of Versailles. Inflation and poverty in 20s/30s Germany was horrendous (people wore suits made from re-purposed paper because cloth was too expensive) and the resulting national depression predisposed the German people to radical alternatives. It didn't help that Hitler was a masterful orator with a Reality Distortion Field that would have made Steve Jobs look like Gerald Ford.
Understanding that part of history is why some people worry about increasing wealth separation/concentration within the US and other Western democracies. Some of the 1% appear to think that controlling information media allows them to control the message and direct the building resentment. Others see an increasingly dry plain and fear the spark and the lightning strike will eventually bypass the media firebreak.
Re:Religious extreme (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me try your way;
Religious extremist poison woman, because their religion says women should not be educated.
Christianity, while not as strongly, also says a women's place is behind the men.
Rick Santorum was a viable candidate for president, supported by many.
In general, the population of the US that supports 'returning to more bible like laws' is near 50%.
Strong extreme christians, of which rick santorum was one, believe in returning to strong biblical laws. Death for homosexuals. death to adulterers. death to those that eat shellfish. death to all who wear polyester pants with a cotton shirt. death to those that might build a muslim mosk in tennessee. death to those that believe climate change could be caused by pollution. death to those that believe in evolution.
I believe it should be death to those who believe in make believe.
Am I clearer now?
Re: (Score:3)
I think the Taliban are anti-girl. (Score:4, Informative)
And that is why there are a bunch of hairy dudes cuddling each other in caves in the mountains instead of being at home cudling with their wives.
Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't condone rape unless you don't have empathy for the victims. For a few people, this is just an expression of sociopathy. But if an entire class of people is widely mistreated this way, that lack of empathy is often due to them being viewed as lesser beings then the abusers. In other words, you aren't troubled by male-on-female rape because women aren't people of the same status as men.
Now, if you don't regard a class of people as equals, how can you have love relationship with an individual of tha
Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. (Score:5, Informative)
They're not anti-girl, they're anti-empowered girls.
Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. (Score:4, Insightful)
"They're not anti-girl, they're anti-empowered girls."
Racial version:
"We don't hate niggers. We just hate uppity niggers."
Re:I think the Taliban are anti-girl. (Score:4, Funny)
So does that make it a bear cave?
Re: (Score:2)
no, they generally don't kill women, they impregnate them, early and often. the problem that will grow is more muslims assholes who abuse women.
Hopefully they will soon make the realization that (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully they will soon make the realization t (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh I don't think you get the import. This wasn't an attack against random women, it was an attack against women seeking an education. They are aware that they need women. They would rather those women stay at home and spit out then take care of sons rather than seek to better themselves.
The message is: Women who seek to become educated will be targeted with violence. Remain at home, weak, ignorant, and dependent. Then there will be slightly less^W^W no violence.
Re: (Score:3)
muslim population is growing. cultures that abuse women have increasing population rate. you'll notice cultures that have more freedom for women have shrinking population. Given a choice and education and opportunity and prosperity, most women have less than 2.1 children
Iraq redux (Score:2)
Note to US: let someone else try and police the mess this time.
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Make the schools coeducated. The Taliban will be pissed but hopefully they wouldn't attack boys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not every Afghan is an extremist. When the alternative is having their girls poisoned, I think many would view it as a lower risk.
Re:Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Their culture is inhumane and should be replaced without qualm or concern. Problem solved.
Aside from that, the protocol is simple, build two identical schools on each side of town, each morning flip coin and heads the boys go to the north school, tails the girls go to the north school. Ditto the delivery of water trucks (like last incident) etc.
Re: (Score:3)
From this week's news...
Re: (Score:2)
Make the schools coeducated.
This would alienate many of those who are willing to accept girls going to school in the first place. It would be somewhat analogous to trying to solve the problem people had with blacks receiving an education at all in the Reconstruction era by forcing integration 80 years early. In trying to stymie your foes, you've only succeeded in multiplying them.
Basically, the situation is more complicated than complete backward asshats willing to poison girls just to punish them for trying to become educated, and
Islam strikes again! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sahih Bukhari 3:48:826
And this is hardly the instance of this in Islam.
A note for naysayers (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Sahih" in this means that the source and the chain of narration of the Hadith is considered to be trustworthy. Of all Sahih Hadith, al-Bukhari is considered the most trustworthy. This means that to the average Muslim, there can be no doubt that Mohammed said this, and therefore that it must be true.
There is a very small minority of Muslims who reject all Hadith, believing only the Quran is authoritative and that it actually bans following texts such as Hadith. Mainstream Islam considers them to be apostates. Too bad, you remove Hadith, you remove much of the backwards, nasty stuff about the religion.
Re:Islam strikes again! (Score:5, Insightful)
If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.
Exodus 21:7
And this is hardly the only instance of this sort of sexism in Judaism and Christianity. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
We're saying Sharia Law is looney - we're not making exceptions for people think Leviticus was or is a template for our society either.
Re: (Score:3)
What's your point?
That myths should not be taken literally.
Re: (Score:3)
They don't follow it. I don't hear about any Christians stoning people to death or poisoning entire schools.
Re:Islam strikes again! (Score:4)
In fairness to the ancient Hebrews, you should read the whole passage:
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges.[a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
A female servant is a concubine and is to be treated as one of his wives. She does not go free after seven years as it is with men because she is regarded as married. To be redeemed means to be sold back to the father. She has certain rights that if not honored means that she is to go free. Feel free to judge them by our modern standard of ethics that our modern ways afford us, but judge them fairly at least.
Frankly, Hebrew laws regarding "servants" or "slaves" seems human when compared with American slavery in the old south where people where essentially regarded as being a type of cattle and where treated as such.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you get off our planet?
Because our faith-powered rockets keep failing! I blame Joseph. He's seemed pretty doubtful that it could work, with his fancy-schmancy physics degree. His lack of faith is disturbing our rocket!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please.. As if the Bible is that much better?
Remember who gobbled the apple?
There are so many bible verses that I'll just link to some web pages:
First page [religioustolerance.org]
Second page [cybercollege.com]
Third page [nobeliefs.com]
Yes, the new testament was generally better than the old testament, but there's lots of fun wackiness in both.
Deuteronomy - Chapter 13 [blueletterbible.org] is also a fun read :)
Mass Hysteria (Score:2)
Re:Mass Hysteria (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mass Hysteria (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm, except this is hardly the first time school girls have been targeted with poison, or acid, or fire, or gunshots.
It's not like we need to come up with alternate explanations because poison is implausible here -- this is straight out of the Taliban playbook.
Are you asserting this or things like this haven't happened? I'm not sure why you're suggesting we need an alternative explanation which implies this didn't really happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, these are fairly typical symptoms of mass hysteria (although I don't much care for the term). I wouldn't be surprised if the blood tests show nothing. And given that a number of the girls have already been released, if it was actual poisoning, the perpetrators don't seem to have used enough to have done serious harm, which doesn't really sound like the Taliban. I wonder if the previous event was genuine? In that case, some of the girls were reported to be in critical condition, but I haven't heard w
The strange irony of Afghanistan circa 2012 (Score:2)
It used to be a rather progressive nation in terms of women's rights. I recall a figure that about 60% of doctors there were women at one time. Now, we can directly and indirectly blame the mess that country has become on 30 years of foreign intervention.
Maybe you should READ more (Score:5, Insightful)
MAYBE if you actually read a book you might learn WHY Muslims have such high need of FEMALE doctors. That is because female patients have to be seen by a female doctor or not at all. The statistic sounds so nice but underneath it is a regime of segregated care where QUALITY of care was of no importance whatsoever.
And 60% of doctors also tells you nothing of the total number of doctors available OR that women (childbirth) need doctors a LOT more then men.
Careful with your statistics young one, they can be tricky things and easily be used to fool you.
Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity (Score:4, Insightful)
How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...
Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.
Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify [un.org] what should be regarded as Universal rights. There's no need for us to rely on our "conscious" or someone else's conscious nor should we sit back if we feel that human rights are being abused in another nation that is sovereign. I'm a very liberal open minded person. If you want to worship some stupid magic person in the sky, go to town. If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.
Your lax definition of a 'Conscious' be damned, begin the escalation of political pressure then economic pressure then physical pressure.
Sort of on topic, from your signature:
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The Nazis were stopped because they blatantly violated (nearly) everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights -- so much so that many of their own detested it. And we should not allow something like the Holocaust to happen again. Communism, on the other hand, is a counter case. We went into Vietnam under the laughable pretenses that a Universal Human Right is capitalism in place of communism (with obvious self interests). Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights and so we were kind of lacking on the support and moral high ground for that war. If you think communism has been "ended" and that it has been "ended" by war and not inherent corruption that it can't seem to shake -- you and I must be reading different books by very different authors.
To recap, Universal Human Rights transcend your suggestion of relativity. I'm not sure but if you're attempting to make fun of people who tolerate other cultures by saying it's relative, there's no place for that when you're dealing with a child's life and their attempt to be educated.
Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity (Score:5, Informative)
The Nazis were stopped because they blatantly violated (nearly) everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights -- so much so that many of their own detested it.
I would have to disagree. After Pearl Harbor, U.S. declared war on Japan, Japan declared war on the U.S., Germany declared war on the U.S. Then the war machine started cranking and the Allies took back Europe. Allies stumbled across concentration camps, and the world learned how evil the Nazis really were. We didn't enter WWII because they "violated human rights." We entered because the Axis attacked us.
Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes and no.
The US was planning to enter World War II, and advance preparations were well underway, long before the Japanese carriers launched their airplanes. This is obvious from reading the popular press of the time.
Pearl Harbor pulled the trigger. At that point, a contingency plan for fighting simultaneous major wars in Europe and the Pacific was pulled off the shelf and put into operation. That plan called for fighting holding actions in the Pacific, winning in Europe, then winning in the Pacific. Perusal of the history books will reveal that this strategy worked.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First, there are hundreds of officers that sit around and create potential scenarios for war from basically every country you can imagine. So in that sense, we are "always" preparing for some sort of armed conflict. Now those guys are borderline paranoid-insane, the stuff they come up with is amazingly detailed and would make for some great movies.
Second, perhaps my definition of "war machine" was a little vague. U.S. officers were fighting for the British Air Force as early as 1938 (maybe 1939?) in an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually they pretty much did (save the world...) without the USA, Britain would have run out of food and other material. Very likely the Axis would have taken over Europe unopposed, and eventually they might have even been able to win against Russia if they weren't fighting a war on two fronts. That would have left China and the USA as their only opposition...
Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity (Score:4, Informative)
Also don't forget the the US provided Russia with trucks, ammunition, food, fuel, and other war related items until the Soviets got their war production up and running. They also had to hunt down quite a few of their key scientists and engineers who had been sent to the Gulags to design and build their own armaments. Russia's initial strategy was to hope the Germans ran out of ammunition before Russia ran out of people charging the guns.
England would have fallen without US supply convoys. Before the US declared it's official entry into the world quite a few US merchant marines were killed while trying to send supplies to England while Congress dithered and did nothing. FDR was actually counting on the Germans attacking US merchant ships to give him a reason to enter the war. And the Germans tried to avoid firing on US ships but they made a few mistakes which provided some motivitation from the US public to try to do something. As it was FDR made a mockery of the US Congress with his lend-lease and safe zone expansion. If the US had not been successful in the war he would have been impeached. He also blatantly defied the US Congress ban on domestic spying looking for German agents. Right after Congress passed their law he just issued a Presidential memo to the justice department telling them to ignore Congress. FDR blatantly violated the US constitution with his actions but I saw a documentary where Presidents Carter, Clinton, Bush 1, and Bush 2 all agreed there are times when breaking the rules are justified and they would have did the same type of things that FDR did. Carter's response to this question was the most unexpected. Of course Lincoln also violated the Constitution during the Civil War as another example of a President trying to help the country regardless of the political BS involved in running a war.
Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights and so we were kind of lacking on the support and moral high ground for that war.
Not true. To quote from Marx's Communist Manifesto:
[The Communists] openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
In other words, the only way to establish a Communist society is through violent revolution, which inherently infringes on others rights to life and/or freedom. The entire Manifesto is riddled with calls to violent revolution against the existing social order, and every communist society since (that I know of) has begun that way: through violence and bloodshed.
And I'm not even going into the question of whether property is a Universal right (which I believe it is, or at the very least a necessary prerequisite to freedom), which Communism absolutely inherently opposes by its very definition.
Re: (Score:3)
You understand the difference between a philosophy of society, and a specific document delineating the views of specific people on how to achieve a certain set of social goals that somewhat match certain tenets of said philosophy, yes?
Re:Universal Human Rights Are Above Relativity (Score:5, Interesting)
Even though Rand herself does not think so; the most salient arguments against it I have ever read are in "We the Living", it was her first, about something she actually knew and is nothing like her other books. I highly recommend everyone read it, especially if they vehemently dislike her other works such as "Atlas Shrugged." You will probably enjoy it and learn something about the nature of men under communism.
The problem is not communism, its probably a fine political and social system for some space aliens some place else in the universe. It does not work well humans though. It simply exchanges one system of class and privilege based on monetary wealth, birth, or both for different one. Society must be run by people therefore there are politics. Under communism where and whenever its tried men turn political clout and favor into first a new form of currency which they then use to get more of the old form of currency. Within half a generation you move for the prospect of a future "workers paradise" like Marx describe to an authoritarian regime. Some people are lucky enough to be born (back to by birth) into good communist families and groomed to be future leadership everyone else becomes members of an under class.
With the added tragedy that production and resources (human and natural) are almost always badly allocated; corruption assures this even if don't believe the invisible hand is the most efficient system of allocation. At least with capitalism society is crudely steered in the vague direction of meritocracy.
Communism is evil and it should be opposed whenever it is proffered as a solution. We must not be naive though. We have gotten along okay for about 2 1/4 centuries but there are problems with our system. Our freedoms and equality really are being eroded by corruption as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify [un.org] what should be regarded as Universal rights.
.......
If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.
The problem you will always run into is that there is ALWAYS someone who can object that your "universal rights" are arbitrary and essentially a reflection of your personal (or collective) values and beliefs. Religious folks (like myself) will appeal to a higher standard, and of course that can be and is objected to on the same grounds, but do not be deluded that you can somehow escape the issue by trying to rule religious beliefs out-- if anything you end up making the problem worse (it is more arb
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you from a culture where everyone is insane?
Not judging, just asking.
Re: (Score:2)
How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...
If you recognize that it's relative, then attempting to stop people who do things that you disagree with can be perfectly in line with your own views.
Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.
Your conscience could say that 1 + 1 = 3, and it still wouldn't be correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Even a good (large) hospital will have problems dealing with 160 patients admitted simultaneously. Afghanistan's hospitals are hardly stellar (0.4 beds per 1000 people, according to google). It shouldn't be surprising that they don't keep wonderfully accurate records in cases like this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Another peaceful message (Score:5, Informative)
No, you have your head in the sand. Read the Qu'ran sometime and some of the other Islamic writings. They demand that Muslims emulate Mohammed, and they go into great excited detail about how Mohammed massacred people who mocked him. See for example Sahi Bukhari :Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443 which describes a massacre in great and gory detail.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Another peaceful message (Score:4, Interesting)
According to Islam, the Quran is the ultimate authority and must be taken as truth. Other Abrahamic religions have their fundamentalist nutcases, it is true, but they have much less of a problem with people reinterpreting the religious texts than Islam does.
Also, giving any sort of religious text a free pass because it's "not meant to be taken literally" is a dangerous game. It allows religious adherents to present their religion as moderate to outsiders while revealing its true and violent face to insiders. I don't think any religious text, whether it's Islamic, Christian or Jewish, should be viewed as anything other than hateful if it promotes violence, genocide, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Which isn't unlike the Bible. But I've never seen anyone here stone their ex for cheating on them. Just like such actions do not happen in most Muslim countries (so, euh, most countries then). This is the action of a very limited group of people. Although I am not a good friend of religions, I nevertheless do not think it is fair to blame a religion for some actions based on a perverted and archaic interpretation of its scriptures by a group of deranged people.
Re:Another peaceful message (Score:5, Informative)
No, you have your head in the sand. Read the Qu'ran sometime and some of the other Islamic writings. They demand that Muslims emulate Mohammed, and they go into great excited detail about how Mohammed massacred people who mocked him.
Mind you, the same is true of the Old Testament and Yahweh.
Re:Another peaceful message (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of course a small number of evil bastards act with the full support of all of the billions of Muslims in the world. By your logic, guys like Anders Breivik and Scott Roeder act with the full support of all Christians.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, not at all. But study the Qu'ran. It justifies (in fact, demands) violence to convert non-believers to Islam.
Just because all religions are bad doesn't mean some religions aren't worse than others. We see a lot more religiously-motivated violence from Muslims than from other religious groups; that's just a fact.
Islam is a colonialist ideology whose goal is world domination. This is plainly stated in its writings.
Re:Another peaceful message (Score:4, Insightful)
YOU should actually study the Quran, because it actually says exactly the opposite. It demands that you educate yourself (male and female) and demands that no one be forced to convert because that is not a true conversion. There is no more colonialism in Islam than in Christianity, so just stop. You're not helping educate anyone, you're just spreading more misinformation that furthers the divide of understanding between 3 billion people. Stop it.
Re: (Score:3)
The Quran is full of contradictions. This is so that Muslims can pick and choose what to present to outsiders. (There are similar things in the Bible too, so it's not only Islam that's guilty of this.)
There are at least a hundred Quranic verses extolling violence, not to mention many more Islamic writings. These are not abrogated by the token expressions of peacefulness.
We see the consequences today. If you cannot recognize religiously-motivated violence when it blows up in your face, then I guess y
Re: (Score:3)
Really?
Sura 9 of the Koran, the last Sura dictated by the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh, and all that) and hence not subject to revision or qualification by later Suras, seems to call for killing of infidels, in pretty explicit language, repeatedly.
I don't have time to dig out the exact quotes right now. Maybe tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
Christianity?
People pervert religion to their own ends, regardless of which religion it is.
Re:Another peaceful message (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell me something, between Christianity and Islam, which one of the two has committed nearly 19,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11? [thereligionofpeace.com] I'll give you a hint, it's not Christianity.
To the mods now. Refute the point, and don't be an intellectual coward and moderate something because you don't like it.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the Christians only did that whole Inquisition thing, and the Crusades.
Okay, easy enough to counter. Let's go with the convert or die from Islam. Millions dead. Still outnumbers the total of the Inquisition. And the Crusades were a two point counter to the Muslims who'd spend ~200 years pillaging, raping and burning Spain. That wasn't actually what triggered the crusades. What triggered the crusades itself, was the muslims declaring that no christian shall have access to the holy land.
That number is terribly inflated and I could easily come up with the same or even a larger number for crimes committed by Christians.
Really, use your brain
Incorrect, they're all sourced on the website via the media that reports it. Every, si
Re:Another peaceful message (Score:4, Informative)
No, you have your head in the sand. Although there are more Christians than Muslims, the number of religiously-motivated violent attacks by Muslims today far outweighs religiously-motivated attacks by Christians.
Currently, there are religiously-motivated wars and attacks in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria. There are religiously-motivated bombings, suicide attacks, etc. in Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Phillipines, Thailand. I could probably think of 100 examples in the last year if pressed.
On the Christian side, I can think of Brevik and the Oklahoma CIty bomber and maybe some attacks on abortion providers. Very small-scale indeed compared to Islamic religious violence.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the grammar Natzi's will follow shortly with other issues in my post I'm not seeing offhand, this post included.
Re: (Score:3)
The Koran, much like the Bible, are full of really good messages. They're also full of a lot of garbage.
Yes, absolutely. However, the garbage in the Quran is unfortunately peddled by a large number of religious authorities. Islam is structured in such a way that an observant Muslim is required to dedicate himself (it's always "him") to religious warfare and must be prepared to commit violence to expand Islam.
You can ask any Islamic scholar about this. They'll either confirm it or dissemble, but the
Re:Another peaceful message (Score:5, Insightful)
And when the priests were finally caught and sent to prison?
Was the reaction the same as when we killed Osama?
Did the Catholics decapitate anyone for saying bad things about the priests?
Did the Christians kill people because they caught the people murdering doctors who perform abortions?
No?
Then there is a fucking difference.
People get murdered for daring to draw a picture of Mohammad.
No one got killed for "Art" that was a crucifix in urine.
Re:Another peaceful message (Score:4, Informative)
If you had drawn a crucifx in urine 500 years ago, you would have been burned alive.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see what your Star Wars analogy has to do with it. Consider:
There are at least a hundred verses in the Quran that call for or justify religious violence. Many other Islamic writings do the same.
There have been tens of thousands of religiously-motivated attacks by Muslims in the last ten years, greatly outnumbering religiously-motivated attacks by any other religious group.
What is it you're failing to grasp?
Re: (Score:2)
if that's true, would still be accurate as one form of currency there is women