Afghanistan: Deadly Kandahar protest at Koran burning

This shouldn't surprise anybody, after the riots, protests, and killings following the cartoons of Muhammad a few years back. Even in the UK, vast majorities of Muslims feel that people should be punished for speaking their mind about Islam (ie, committing "blasphemy"). The Florida pastor is a nutcase as well, but that doesn't even begin to excuse this.

The recent protest which was sparked today is not only in opposition to the Q'uran burning but it's more to do with the revelation that an 11 man US kill Squad hunted Afghan civillians for sport and cut off their body parts for trophies. The picture below shows one of the soldiers taking a photograph of himself with the young boy.


US soldier smirks while holding the body of a dead Afghan boy

Source

Source for the picture itself

NB: This does not justify the attacks on innocent UN staff who do alot of good work in Afghanistan.

Sadly, looking at both, you find many flaws. The military, however, does have a necessary, though, unfortunate, purpose. Religion, on the other hand, is pointlessly harmful. This is particularly true of Islam, as, unlike Western Christianity, it has not yet been secularized by modern society. The beliefs and actions of mainstream Islam worldwide (such as the widespread support of laws against blasphemy, and the inherent sexism and arbitrary brutality of sharia law) are what leads me to criticize it.

I don't know why you have drawn up this paragraph as it is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. Anyway let me address what have you said. Your right, the military does have a purpose and that purpose is to impose America's hegemony via imperialism to support it's polticial interests in the middle east and South Asian region. In your second point you are comparing Islam worldwide to Western Christianity - which is the basis of an unfair analysis. If you want to compare Islam with Christianity then you must also include Christianity in Central Africa or only compare Western Islam with Western Christianity.

You make some very important points. Firstly, I meant the definitional purpose of a military, to defend the country - you can argue in support of the military as an institution while at the same time criticizing its actions. Secondly, I do indeed think that making that regional distinction is important. Anyone who is familiar with African Christianity knows that it is quite fundamental. It is in the difference between Western Christianity and Western Islam, however, that the issue becomes quite apparent. Islam in the United Kingdom, for example, is much more conservative that Christianity in the United Kingdom. Just look at any opinion poll on the matter.

It probably is much more conservative but the opposite could be said about Islam and Christianity in America. You will find mainstream American politicians and hopeful presidential candidates even expressing their desire to base the American legal system on the Bible and some even wishing to ban masterbation, adultery and abortion as these are considered sins.

x

I am very well versed in the nature of religion and politics in the United States, as I am a citizen and avid consumer of current events. The US suffers from the tyranny and ignorance of homegrown religious conservatism in the form of fundamentalist Christianity. Christianity in the United Kingdom is now largely toothless, but in your rapidly growing Muslim community there lies the potential for a return of the dogmatic dominance of religion.

This deflection doesn't make the issues of the UK go away.

There are 150,000 US soldiers out in Afghanistan. 11 men is hardly representative of the entire military force nor of any other UN troops.

Extremist Catholic groups still exist in Northern Ireland and this article represents it's current problem in regards to a recent car bombing by the I.R.A.

They are more motivated by nationalism (in the form of a United Ireland) than religion.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/opinion/31iht-edevrony.1.7331274.html

Again, yet more deflection. Just because their remains the problem of the IRA, does not mean that the problems I have enumerated on do not exist.

Most terrorists groups are focused upon political interests more than fundamentalism.



They exist but what do you want from me

I am glad you acknowledge the threat posed by the importation of reactionary and fundamentalist culture. I hope it leads you to be less forgiving of the ideology of Islam and the actions of its adherents.

I never claimed that Islam was problematic. Also it's the religion of Islam not the ideology of Islam.

there no need to kill them in the US or UK, when they are dropping bombs everyday in the middle east. Also your comment is way off, the only Christians being killed in the middle east are soldiers. You may get a very small % civilians be killed in the middle east, for reasons of only being white, but people get killed in the UK and US for being a different colour, but this is such a small monitory.

Over here, over there its the same thing, we all are one, HUMAN, were not American, Indian, British, Iraqi, but HUMANS.

You misunderstand my statement, I am commenting, literally, on Islam's ideology, not saying that Islam is an ideology. In addition, do you not find fundamentalist religion to be problematic?

Islam =/= Fundamentalist

Again, you misunderstand, I am asking whether or not you take issue with a fundamentalist interpretation of religion, any religion. It so happens that many Muslims in the United Kingdom are fundamentalists (i.e. they take the Koran literally), and this, in my opinion, is problematic. If you see fundamentalist religion as problematic, then you should see its prevalence among Muslims in the UK as problematic as well.

There are several factors you are not considering: the sect, interpretation and contextual analysis the individual Muslim takes. This would all influence whether or not taking the Q'uran as literal will be problematic. Also may I ask what porportion of the UK's Muslims are fundamentalists?