tycho wrote:Magigi wrote:alma wrote:McReggae wrote:Any sympathizer ready to explain why youths from a Mosque burnt a church in their protests?
name 1 sympathiser
@alphadoti...reasons like macementry!!!
Taking our thoughts along this road is counterproductive. At least AlphDoti avails himself for discussion, and so far, I haven't seen him take sides with terrorism.
The question asked by @Mcreggae seems to exclude reasonable dialogue on this matter because 'sympathizers' are anyway, being 'dispatched'.
It's like asking for a license to kill or something.
But what I know is that one can guess that such actions as burning churches are provocations for religious confrontation and disguise of political motives.
Let us respect each other. I say that this issue of saying some individuals are this or that because of their religious background is unfair.
Let's be objective. I am saying a criminal is a criminal. A sinner is a sinner. It does not matter which camp you are in.
Yes it is true that some Muslims themselves are responsible for some of the distortions about Islam. Some of the misconceptions about Islam is as a result of the misbehaviour of some Msulims. And that is to be fair and objective.
But targeting some people for harassment, for illegal arrests, for detention and now killing.
And now Wazuans, the club of great mindsm are supporting these killings because those being killed are not one of their own. I say this is hypocracy.
And when somebody speaks up about these, you turn around and say "so and so is a simpathyzer".
Are people here now saying they are in support of governments who go around killing people without trial?
Can we now say the judiciary has no functions? Everybody should be the police, the judge and executer?