Bangladeshi blogger who wrote on site promoting secularism is killed

[webfact]

Bangladesh man the latest blogger killed in the country

SYLHET, Bangladesh (AP) — Masked men wielding machetes stabbed a blogger and author to death Tuesday near his home in northeastern Bangladesh, police said, the third fatal attack this year against a blogger in the South Asian country.

Ananta Bijoy Das died instantly after being attacked in Sylhet city while he was on his way to his job at a bank, said Rahmat Ullah, additional police commissioner in Sylhet.

Ullah said Das was attacked by at least four masked men. "We don't have details, we are looking into it," he said.

It was not immediately clear why Das was targeted, but local media reported that he was close to Avijit Roy, a Bangladeshi-American blogger and writer who was killed in February, allegedly by Islamist extremists.

Das's friend Shahiduzzamn Paplu told reporters that Das wrote for Roy's popular blog Mukto-mona, or Free Mind, in which articles on scientific reasoning and religious extremism featured prominently. Das also edited a science magazine in Sylhet and wrote several books, Paplu said.

Roy was known for his writings against religious fundamentalism. He was attacked along with his wife on the streets of Dhaka, the capital, when he returned to Bangladesh from the United States. His wife survived.

Another blogger, Oyasiqur Rahman Babu, was killed in March, also by alleged Islamist radicals.

On Facebook on Monday, Das criticized police for their handling of the investigations into the attacks on Roy and Babu.

Das worked as a journalist for a local newspaper in Sylhet before joining a bank, Paplu said.

Sylhet is 192 kilometers (120 miles) northeast of Dhaka.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-05-12

[webfact]

Bangladeshi Blogger Who Wrote on Site Promoting Secularism Is Killed
By JULFIKAR ALI MANIK and NIDA NAJAR

DHAKA, Bangladesh — A blogger who wrote for a website that promoted secularism was killed on Tuesday by a group of men wielding sharp weapons, a police official said. It was the third fatal attack on a Bangladeshi blogger since February.

Four men chased the blogger, Ananta Bijoy Dash, through streets near his home in the northeastern city of Sylhet and attacked him with sharp weapons, said Mohammad Rahamat Ullah, a police official in Sylhet. No arrests have been made, Mr. Ullah said.

The assailants walked away after the attack, leaving Mr. Dash’s body near a pond, Mr. Ullah said.

Imran Sarker, the head of an organization of secular bloggers in Bangladesh, said that Mr. Dash had written for Free Mind, a website that the Bangladeshi-American blogger Avijit Roy had moderated before being killed in February by machete-wielding assailants while leaving a book fair in Dhaka, the capital.

Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/world/asia/ananta-bijoy-dash-bangladesh-blogger.html

-- The New York Times 2015-05-12

[Seastallion]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

[Steely Dan]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

Free speech is indeed important and not something to just pay lip service to, no pun intended. I'm sure that the criticism of religion by the secular bloggers was considered objectionable by the murderers, just as the drawing of Mohammad was by the cartoonists in Texas to the deceased would be murderers. In both cases it makes no difference, you either have free speech, or you don't. Of course Islamofascists consider education for women to be an abomination, but you don't hear anyone conceding the right of religious nut cases to dictating this - I really do wonder why?

[siam2007]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

very very sad indeed but how come I am not surprised

there are some sorts of people who should find another place in this universe far away from our planet where they can create a sick and perverted system as they please....

[boomerangutang]

If they're going to cull people from the world, I wish they'd start with constipated-minded people like themselves, instead of preying on decent folks like the guy mentioned in the OP. Darwin gave elegant examples of 'survival of the fittest.' Our species will skew that, and ensure that buttplugs take over.

I would call Muslim extremists scum, but it would be denigrating to scum.

[Jingthing]

 

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

and which one would that be? hint hint nudge nudge wink wink

Oh, behave.

Some of my best friends are scientologists.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Jingthing

[seedy]

one racist post removed

[MAJIC]

A Religeon that denies freedom of speech must be very weak and not worth supporting!

[Seastallion]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

Free speech is indeed important and not something to just pay lip service to, no pun intended. I'm sure that the criticism of religion by the secular bloggers was considered objectionable by the murderers, just as the drawing of Mohammad was by the cartoonists in Texas to the deceased would be murderers. In both cases it makes no difference, you either have free speech, or you don't. Of course Islamofascists consider education for women to be an abomination, but you don't hear anyone conceding the right of religious nut cases to dictating this - I really do wonder why?

What makes a huge difference was the blogger was voicing his opinion, knowing it may offend but not deliberately intending to offend whereas Geller set out purely to offend. It's the same difference as that between negligent manslaughter and homicide. One didn't intend to kill and the other did.

[dragonfly94]

What makes a huge difference was the blogger was voicing his opinion, knowing it may offend but not deliberately intending to offend whereas Geller set out purely to offend. It's the same difference as that between negligent manslaughter and homicide. One didn't intend to kill and the other did.

Yes it is very offensive to Muslims to tell the truth or have an opinion about Islam, kill kill kill is the normal response from the religion of peace and tolerance!

[jerojero]

All in the name of God. My religion is true, yours is evil. Some of the worst acts of humans against humans are done in the name of religion or God. Brain washing en masse.

Edited May 13, 2015 by jerojero

[MaxYakov]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

Free speech is indeed important and not something to just pay lip service to, no pun intended. I'm sure that the criticism of religion by the secular bloggers was considered objectionable by the murderers, just as the drawing of Mohammad was by the cartoonists in Texas to the deceased would be murderers. In both cases it makes no difference, you either have free speech, or you don't. Of course Islamofascists consider education for women to be an abomination, but you don't hear anyone conceding the right of religious nut cases to dictating this - I really do wonder why?

What makes a huge difference was the blogger was voicing his opinion, knowing it may offend but not deliberately intending to offend whereas Geller set out purely to offend. It's the same difference as that between negligent manslaughter and homicide. One didn't intend to kill and the other did.

And the basis of this fabulous hypothesis is?

Edited May 13, 2015 by MaxYakov

[bangon04]

A Religeon that denies freedom of speech must be very weak and not worth supporting!

Surely you are not referring to the 'religion of peace' - that would bring a Fatwa down on you too for such blasphemy.

[kannot]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

very very sad indeed but how come I am not surprised

there are some sorts of people who should find another place in this universe far away from our planet where they can create a sick and perverted system as they please....

No problem all religions have created this place from the paedophile catholics to the "religion of peace" all equally insane backed up by that wonderful scientific phenomenon laughably called "belief" or even more stupidly "faith"

[JDGRUEN]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

Free speech is indeed important and not something to just pay lip service to, no pun intended. I'm sure that the criticism of religion by the secular bloggers was considered objectionable by the murderers, just as the drawing of Mohammad was by the cartoonists in Texas to the deceased would be murderers. In both cases it makes no difference, you either have free speech, or you don't. Of course Islamofascists consider education for women to be an abomination, but you don't hear anyone conceding the right of religious nut cases to dictating this - I really do wonder why?

What makes a huge difference was the blogger was voicing his opinion, knowing it may offend but not deliberately intending to offend whereas Geller set out purely to offend. It's the same difference as that between negligent manslaughter and homicide. One didn't intend to kill and the other did.

An offend Islam means he must be killed. Notice this is the THIRD such killing in recent times for the same reason done in the same manner hacked by machetes. This is very much like the Geller situation -- Conduct FREE Speech and killers come to kill ... Islam - a Religion of Peace - What a Joke...

[JDGRUEN]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

DIFFERENCE --- killing those who offend is the difference.

[MaxYakov]

Secularism meets (beliefism + fanaticism + barbarism)

Edited May 13, 2015 by MaxYakov

[JDGRUEN]

If anyone wants complete coverage on this set of Triple Killings in Bangladesh ... then tune it to BBC they are running it today.

[MaxYakov]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

DIFFERENCE --- killing those who offend is the difference.

Yes, but killing free speech may be only one step removed from killing the speaker.

[toooa]

The general inability to take criticism whether it be about politics or religion is what makes Asia truly backward... as for the Islamo-fascists, these ppl are way on the back-end of the evolutionary bell curve. Censorship in whatever form it may take, is admission that your "argument" is nonsense. To call a spade a mother truckin' shovel, I'd say that Islam is most definitely an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

[toooa]

...any amount of belief don't make it so...the idea that it does is just plain offensive.

[Steely Dan]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

Free speech is indeed important and not something to just pay lip service to, no pun intended. I'm sure that the criticism of religion by the secular bloggers was considered objectionable by the murderers, just as the drawing of Mohammad was by the cartoonists in Texas to the deceased would be murderers. In both cases it makes no difference, you either have free speech, or you don't. Of course Islamofascists consider education for women to be an abomination, but you don't hear anyone conceding the right of religious nut cases to dictating this - I really do wonder why?

What makes a huge difference was the blogger was voicing his opinion, knowing it may offend but not deliberately intending to offend whereas Geller set out purely to offend. It's the same difference as that between negligent manslaughter and homicide. One didn't intend to kill and the other did.

It's interesting that you presume to know the motives behind the bloggers and Pam Geller's actions. Whilst I would not go so far, I put it to you the message in each case was a meant as a wake up call to those encountering religious fanatics, not to the fanatics themselves. The only message they should get should be from predator drones not bloggers, they are beyond reason and negotiation. Your example is also interesting as you describe degrees of guilt for the victims and not for the ideology they fight against.

[arjunadawn]

Very sad. Free speech is important, and those that speak up against political or religious movements are not free at all

But even the biggest of websites in SE Asia don't tolerate free speech when it comes to some religions or certain politics.

Free speech is indeed important and not something to just pay lip service to, no pun intended. I'm sure that the criticism of religion by the secular bloggers was considered objectionable by the murderers, just as the drawing of Mohammad was by the cartoonists in Texas to the deceased would be murderers. In both cases it makes no difference, you either have free speech, or you don't. Of course Islamofascists consider education for women to be an abomination, but you don't hear anyone conceding the right of religious nut cases to dictating this - I really do wonder why?

What makes a huge difference was the blogger was voicing his opinion, knowing it may offend but not deliberately intending to offend whereas Geller set out purely to offend. It's the same difference as that between negligent manslaughter and homicide. One didn't intend to kill and the other did.

I agree with you; it shocks me and perhaps others, but sure- ok, Geller set out to offend- I think couching the event as solely a free speech issue is both true and untrue. She intended to confront. I agree with her, but she conceals her actions under the banner of free speech (which it is, but misses the greater point).

It was another group of people, supranational, extra-territorially, who redefined and circumscribed the US Constitutionally protected free speech as something repugnant and alien to Americans and by threat of force or coercion or death she/Americans were told the free speech parameters have changed into some caricature of its original intent (never forget Free Speech is not just voice; it is assembly and association. Poison the well and all the water is bad).

One has only then to bend over, accept imposed changes to fundamental natural rights, or respond- defend/protect. To not respond is simply cowardly; we can call not responding to islamic jihad redefining free speech as something else, I suppose; perhaps, but it is nevertheless a cowardly act to not respond (I hate to say that word because the fact remains others see this different than me and can articulate a position where they do not see themselves as cowards at all; they simply believe Geller provoked something that would not have otherwise existed in time- I reject this wholly as its demonstrable this has been mounting, but I concede honorable men can disagree).

This was only one single battle in a war she did not start so to assert that she is thus culpable for the war is absurd. She, the West, indeed the East, are being warred upon. But Geller is no more responsible for the actions of others than a steak knife should be imprisoned for murder. The same argument that finds Geller accountable for the acts of others seems apparently to serve as justifying the limits imposed on free speech as well because no matter her intention, it was factually protected speech; this point cannot ever be changed by rationalizing facts that followed that day.

[lvr181]

Religion has another one of its finest moments?

[ggt]

Evil can not tolerate light...free speech brings evil out into the open for all to see...sad ending to a voice so desperately needed in these ignorant and intolerant countries...

Edited May 13, 2015 by ggt

[Steely Dan]

Apparently the deceased blogger was denied a visa to travel to Sweden. This is the same suicidal Sweden that blocks the entry of Iraqi Christians yet can't get enough of parasitic culture enrichers who hate it to its very bones.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/sweden-slammed-for-denying-visa-to-murdered-blogger_1594737.html

Edited May 15, 2015 by Steely Dan