Quickly Now....

According to reports, an American soldier has killed sixteen Afghan civilians:

An American soldier opened fire on villagers near his base in southern Afghanistan Sunday and killed 16 civilians, according to President Hamid Karzai, who called it an "assassination" and furiously demanded an explanation from Washington. Nine children and three women were among the dead.

Ignore the idiot comments following the article and keep in mind that Karzai is in power because of the West, that this statement here so ridiculous it cannot be defended:

"This is an anti-human and anti-Islamic act," said Khan. "Nobody is allowed in any religion in the world to kill children and women."

...and that had an Afghan committed this atrocity, no one would have noticed. That an American will be caught, tried and punished is a sharp contrast between him and a culture that says burning a book which no one can read is worse than maiming and killing other people.



Related: in case we are unclear about the alleged fairness of the religion of peace:

Sudanese Christians who have barely a month to leave the north or risk being treated as foreigners are starting to move, but Christian leaders are concerned that the 8 April deadline set by Islamic-majority Sudan is unrealistic. 

"We are very concerned. Moving is not easy ... people have children in school. They have homes ... It is almost impossible," Roman Catholic Bishop Daniel Adwok, the Khartoum archdiocese auxiliary told ENInews in a telephone interview on 7 March. 

Sudan in February announced the deadline for the former citizens it had stripped of nationality after South Sudan's January 2011 vote to secede. The ultimatum will affect an estimated 500,000-700,000 people, who are mainly Christians of southern origin that still live in the north. 

Many of them fled north during the long civil war fought between the Government of Sudan and the former rebels, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement. They have lived there for decades together with children who were born there. Few have ties with South Sudan.

Had any Western party behaved in such a way, we could find no excuse or forgiveness.



Why the European Union should be allowed to dissolve (if not actively dissolve) and why the government should not worry about talismans concealed under one's clothes as opposed to identity-covering/denigrating garments:

In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.... 


The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.” 

The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols. 

They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion.

The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9. 

Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights. 

They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.

Unbelievable.




And happy Holi.