Reading about 13yr old girls getting stoned to death because she tried to report a rape by THREE men and her even her OWN father condems her to death shows me this religion can never be helped nor will they see the ways of the western world no matter how educated they become.
Thank God Hindus would never do such terrible things.
(PS These links were provided to you before. If you see something in blue, click on it. That will take you to the referenced item. It's really not that difficult.)
Muslims don't have the monopoly on barbaric behavior.
Have you never heard of the custom of forcing women to perform the "Sati" (or "Suttee") ritual?
Do you think illiterate Hindu fathers in villages don't kill their daughters for supposedly shaming their families?
Is it possible that you are really this clueless?
Last edited by Gandhi90s; Dec 1, 08 at 12:00 am.
Reason: add links
(PS These links were provided to you before. If you see something in blue, click on it. That will take you to the referenced item. It's really not that difficult.)
Muslims don't have the monopoly on barbaric behavior.
Have you never heard of the custom of forcing women to perform the "Sati" (or "Suttee") ritual?
Do you think illiterate Hindu fathers in villages don't kill their daughters for supposedly shaming their families?
Is it possible that you are really this clueless?
Does Hinduism practice sharia law?
No and that is what I am getting at. It is the fact that an entire country practices this and not just a very small minority. I never said Hindus are perfect but we do try to keep up with the modern world unlike most islamic countries other than a few like Dubai/Qatar.
But thanks for the computer lesson...not really appreciated.
__________________ STRANGE is a necessary evil required to refresh and renew the NORMAL.
Preemptive defensive posturing??? Surely sounds like it.
After most terrorist attacks in India, the anti-Pakistan rhetoric has drummed up to various degrees.
Given the apparent proficiency of the "terrorists" in using firearms and urban warfare techniques to hold the NSG (an elite commando force, right up there with the SAS and the likes) at bay for close to 60 hours certainly points to the fact that they were:
a) Trained in the use of weapons and urban warfare techniques to a level similar to that of a trained military personnel
b) Were possibly Pakistani army regulars (as done by Pakistani Army in Kargil - 1999, under the leadership of, US' favourite dictator Gen. P Musharraf).
The GPS unit found in the abandoned trawler had the directions to Karachi programmed within. This could lead credence to the theory that the "terrorists" actually hoped to escape after having wrecked havoc (Further credence by the fact that both the properties where the terrorist holed up, are, literally a hop skip and a jump away from the sea, where the water is deep enough for a trawler to get close to the coast)
The posturing by Zardarli leads me to think that whatever evidence Indian agencies have uncovered (or that he thinks they may/will uncover) will be enough to at the very least, establish that the perpetrators were infact provided assistance (logistical, training and otherwise) by some elements within the Pakistani Army / ISI (under specific orders or by 'rogue' elements), and Zardari's efforts are simple a rehashing of what Nawaz Sharif did after it became clear that the "intruders" captured in Kargil were infact Pakistani Army regulars.
__________________
The single biggest problem about communication is the illusion that it has taken place - G.B. Shaw
(PS These links were provided to you before. If you see something in blue, click on it. That will take you to the referenced item. It's really not that difficult.)
Thank God a few of us can also use search engines and have rather good memories. The first incident (justified or not) was after a Muslim mob had set alight a railway compartment and 59 Hindus were burnt alive. Riots followed between two emotionally charged groups and a lot more lives were lost. But to paint Hindu's as the only ones who do "terrible things" is hiding the truth.
The second incident sounds like one in a series of many such incidents that have been happening in Orissa over the last decade and a half, where Hindu Religious Organisations are opposed to the Church forcibly converting tribals to christianity. Again, to paint Hindus as the only ones doing "Terrible Things" is hiding the truth. AFAIK forced religious conversions are against the UN Charter on Human Rights (I could be off the mark w.r.t. the exact charter that this violates, but am sure I'll be corrected )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Muslims don't have the monopoly on barbaric behavior.
Have you never heard of the custom of forcing women to perform the "Sati" (or "Suttee") ritual?
No, you are right. Muslims don't have monopoly on barbaric behaviour. However, taking those links to be representative behaviour followers of Hinduism worldwide, is like one taking the actions of KKK to be representative of the way all Christians think. It is just as far fetched and you know it.
Yes I have heard of the custom of women being forced to perform "Sati" ritual, however the practice has since been outlawed. Now, before you jump back and pull up links that show that some woman somewhere was made to follow the ritual, I hope you'll agree that the number of times this happens is nowhere comparable to the instances of beheadings and stonings that occur in any of the Islamic societies, governed under the sharia law (Think Saudi Arabia - your partners in peace)
So no, Muslims don't have a monopoly in barbaric behaviour. But the "home" of Islam - Saudi Arabia, and a slew of other countries that follow the Islamic law certainly seem to have a monopolistic stranglehold on barbaric behaviour. Where a thief gets his hands chopped off, and homosexuality is a capital offence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Do you think illiterate Hindu fathers in villages don't kill their daughters for supposedly shaming their families?
Is it possible that you are really this clueless?
No. But are you really this clueless to believe that a father killing his daughter for supposedly shaming their family has a lot to do with literacy (or lack thereof) and almost nothing to do with religion?
__________________
The single biggest problem about communication is the illusion that it has taken place - G.B. Shaw
Thank God a few of us can also use search engines and have rather good memories. The first incident (justified or not) was after a Muslim mob had set alight a railway compartment and 59 Hindus were burnt alive. Riots followed between two emotionally charged groups and a lot more lives were lost. But to paint Hindu's as the only ones who do "terrible things" is hiding the truth.
The second incident sounds like one in a series of many such incidents that have been happening in Orissa over the last decade and a half, where Hindu Religious Organisations are opposed to the Church forcibly converting tribals to christianity. Again, to paint Hindus as the only ones doing "Terrible Things" is hiding the truth.
<snip>
You miight be surprised to find that I agree with almost everything you say. But you lack context in attacking me (however politely ).
I have never claimed that Hindus are the only ones who do terrible things. Far from it! However, I have been responding to anaggie, who started out with the thesis that all Muslims should be eradicated because of the acts of a few, and has been backpedaling ever since (for which I do give him credit). However, he has a habit of taking one example and generalizing it to justify his attitude of hatred, which is what I object to. Here's the most recent example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anaggie
Same reason why I started getting emotion involved with Muslim issues. Reading about 13yr old girls getting stoned to death because she tried to report a rape by THREE men and her even her OWN father condems her to death shows me this religion can never be helped nor will they see the ways of the western world no matter how educated they become.
My response was meant to demonstrate to him that barbaric behavior is not exclusively related to religion. While there may be some correlation, it is nowhere near enough to want to wipe out millions of human beings.
A few clarifications: The Muslim mob set the train on fire in retaliation for the VHP's provocative destruction of the Babri Mosque. Secondly, there is absolutely no proof that churches are performing forced conversions in Orissa, and even if they were, there are legal remedies available, especially with a state government sympathetic to Hindus. Again, this is not meant to accuse only Hindus of doing terrible things, but to point out that both sides share the blame and putting all the blame on the Muslims only exposes the weakness of anaggie's position.
I am hardly anti-Hindu. In fact, my paternal family is Hindu and I think Hinduism is a great religion, even though I am not religious. But I don't believe real Hinduism would advocate or even condone extermination the followers of another religion. This is why I don't consider militant Hindus real Hindus, just as I don't consider the terrorists real Muslims. YMMV.
The 1971 war took place as a consequence of 10 million refugees coming to India following genocihe in East Pakistan, that the U.S. Government, nay, Nixon refused to condemn. Nixon was in love with General Yahya Khan just as Reagan was in love with General Zia-ul-Haq and Bush with Musharraf. I am not sure what you are talking about.
The 1999 war was started by General Musharraf while NAwaz Sharif was the Prime Minister.
The effect of these refugees is still ongoing today. It is the cause of the terrorism in Assam by ULFA (in which Pak has also dipped its dirty fingers).
__________________
There is another FTer called UAfan. In my name there is a space between "UA" and "Fan".
Only in the minds of those who routinely find that criticism of Islamic terrorism offends their sense of moral vanity. *shrugs*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Red herring.
To the contrary, it demonstrates where people of faith can manage to *NOT* wreak murder and destruction on those with whom they disagree on matters of faith. The Quakers won the Nobel Peace Prize, back when it meant something, and the Amish are "religious extremists" of a non-KABOOOM! nature. Sure, zippers may be the work of the devil but anyone who has been to a fair or farmers market in NYS, PA or OH can tell you that those Amish girls sure can cook! If only other religious extremists (of whatever stripe) might follow their example in that regard....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
How convenient that the US can veto any resolution that it doesn't like!
The ability to veto a UN SC resolution and the ability to pass one are two entirely different things. You are apparently unclear on this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
And I'm sure you know that for the most part, the resolutions you refer to were orchestrated by the US.
So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Also, the US shows only contempt for the authority of the UN, unless the UN toes the US line.
I repeat, so what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
So it's somewhat hypocritical to imply that UN resolutions somehow justify the illegal and immoral actions of the US, don't you think?
People who whine about "illegal wars" usually point to the UN as the arbiter of such matters. Unlike some OMNI posters of good will, I do not have a "Rainbows and Unicorns" view of the UN. That said, I repeat my offer to concede the point if you can simply list the UN SC resolution authorizing 9/11.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
Cheap shots and insults are the last refuge of those who have nothing else to fall back on. Thank you for making it obvious that you have no substantive argument.
First, as snarky as your posts are you have little to complain about. Second, the first remark was the correct and proper rejoinder to a weak attempt to quote my signature and the second was a creative way to point out the intellectual bankruptcy of your claim w/r/t the non-existence of muslim terrorism--a claim which is observably wrong to anyone who has not spent the last ~30 years hibernating in a sandy cave on Mars.....
O/H
__________________
Let's try something different, let's *think* for a change. BANNER SEVENTEEN, BABY!
so, how many of you now see my viewpt on eradication of Islam?
Sorry, I am just catching up here after the holiday, but what was your point about the "eradication" of Islam? If you mean by force of arms or some kind of "final solution" for Muslims, then that is simply morally wrong (at least in my view).
Islam is immature as a religion* and as a political force, and is going to be problematic until it undergoes a transformation similar to the Christian Reformation or the 18th Century Jewish Enlightenment. Until that time, we will simply have to contain that segment of Islam that likes to engage in terrorism, etc.
O/H
==========
*In comparison to other major religions.
__________________
Let's try something different, let's *think* for a change. BANNER SEVENTEEN, BABY!
It really is time for the world to put an end to this BS. That means that the USA quits acting as the world's dictator of what is right and wrong and listen to the global community.
And what moral authority does the "global community" have? You might want to take a look at some of our neighbors in the "global community" (China, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran, North Korea, etc.) before you opine that this sort of thing wouldn't happen if the US wasn't such a Big Meanie, etc......
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
I am well aware that there are vast numbers of peaceful Muslims throughout the world. To pretend, however, that this is not Islamic-extremist terrorism is, I think, naive in the extreme.
Concur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
To tarnish an entire religion because 0.01% of its adherents commit acts of terror is absurd.
Neither PTravel nor I are "tarnishing" an entire religion; the folks who commit atrocity after atrocity in the name of Islam are.
O/H
__________________
Let's try something different, let's *think* for a change. BANNER SEVENTEEN, BABY!
Sorry, I am just catching up here after the holiday, but what was your point about the "eradication" of Islam? If you mean by force of arms or some kind of "final solution" for Muslims, then that is simply morally wrong (at least in my view).
Islam is immature as a religion* and as a political force, and is going to be problematic until it undergoes a transformation similar to the Christian Reformation or the 18th Century Jewish Enlightenment. Until that time, we will simply have to contain that segment of Islam that likes to engage in terrorism, etc.
O/H
==========
*In comparison to other major religions.
See? When you're reasonable, I can agree with you 100%.
"That segment of Islam that likes to engage in terrorism" is so much more accurate than "the adherents (the implication being all or most) of the Religion of Peace," in relation to the point you want to make.
I'd be happy to. "Islamic-extremist terrorism," is terrorism committed because of the belief that it is a religious imperative. The term "extremist" suggests that it is only fanatic adherents who are behind it.
I am not faulting you for doing so, but I do find it comical that we'd have to say "Islamic extremist terrorism" and I am not going to assuage the Morally Vain.
I mean, did any of the folks claiming "BIGOTRY!!" any time one attempts to discuss the causes and frequency of Islamic terrorism fault SJCFlyerLG for not saying Christian extremist evangelicals? Of course not. (not that I particularly care for hardcore Christian evangelism, but the point remains.....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
I don't know about the KKK, but things like abortion-clinic bombings and the lilke (and OKC) are Christian-extremist terrorism.
Hmm. I thought that OKC was political in nature. W/R/T the abortion clinic bombings (and abortion doctor shootings) as Christian terrorism (or "Christian extremist terrorism") as you have.
But here, the thing: how many abortion clinic bombings have their been? What's the over-under on abortion doctor murders? Hint: those numbers are going to be pretty small, especially compared to the death toll in acts of Islamic terror.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
However, the JDL's bombing of an Arab office in the U.S. is an example Jewish-extremist terrorism, as is the slaughter in the mosque on the Dome of the Rock by that lunatic Israeli a decade or so ago.
Concur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTravel
I believe I said very clearly in my post that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, good people. ... Most Muslims are not terrorists, just as most Christians, most Jews and most Hindus are not terrorists. Some, however, are and they are motivated by their specific religious belief.
Right, but why, do you think, there's all the nagging and demanding that we "take the pledge" every time Islamic terrorism is discussed?
O/H
__________________
Let's try something different, let's *think* for a change. BANNER SEVENTEEN, BABY!
See? When you're reasonable, I can agree with you 100%.
I think it's just beginner's luck on you're part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
"That segment of Islam that likes to engage in terrorism" is so much more accurate than "the adherents (the implication being all or most) of the Religion of Peace," in relation to the point you want to make.
It doesn't matter how detailed I am, historically in OMNI, w/r/t Islamic terrorism. Invariably, someone plays the "RACIST!! BIGOT!!" card. We also see a variation of "BUT...BUT...BUT...WHITE GUYS DO IT TOO!!", usually w/r/t the Provos, as if that has some ameliorative effect on Islamic terrorism (happily, I have some street cred on that, having previously declared Gerry Adams to be a terrorist. Which he is.)
BTW, why no condemnation w/r/t the reference one page 1 to what "Christian evangelicals" (implication being "ALL" C/Evs, under your parsing)? Or is it just that we have to be PC w/r/t Islamic terrorists but not Christian evangelicals?
O/H
__________________
Let's try something different, let's *think* for a change. BANNER SEVENTEEN, BABY!
I see a big difference between the real cause of terrorism and the stated purpose of terrorist acts. It comes down to this: the masterminds behind these acts have decided that violence is the way to get something done. They really don't give a damn about the social, political, religious, economic situation of a particular hamlet, village, town, city, county, province, country or region. It could be a simple matter of gaining power, notoriety, fame, prestige, political leverage, popular favor; the reasons are endless. It comes down to being able to convince a group of people that committing these large-scale acts is the right thing to do. The typical buttons they push are religious, political, nationalist, economic, social, ethnic, etc. But that's all they are: buttons that can be pushed to sway a group of people into following along.
(Emphasis mine)
Mastermind is another word that comes up all the time.
You keep hearing about these terrorist masterminds that are being killed over in the middle east.
Terrorist masterminds.
Masterminds sort of a lofty way to describe what these people do dont you think?
Theyre not masterminds.
Okay you take bomb right and you put in back pack and you get on bus and you blow yourself up
Why do I have to blow myself up, why dont I put..
Who is the [effing] mastermind here me or you?
-"Underwear Goes Inside The Pants", Lazyboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart
And they can be taught to fear the night.
O/H
__________________
Let's try something different, let's *think* for a change. BANNER SEVENTEEN, BABY!
Last edited by Occupationalhazard; Dec 1, 08 at 11:00 am.
Location: Somewhere near DCA. NW Platinum. AA Platinum.
Posts: 11,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
I have never claimed that Hindus are the only ones who do terrible things. Far from it! However, I have been responding to anaggie, who started out with the thesis that all Muslims should be eradicated because of the acts of a few, and has been backpedaling ever since (for which I do give him credit). However, he has a habit of taking one example and generalizing it to justify his attitude of hatred, which is what I object to.
I agree one hundred percent with your view on anaggie's views. Every one here does. This habbit of his is not new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandhi90s
My response was meant to demonstrate to him that barbaric behavior is not exclusively related to religion. While there may be some correlation, it is nowhere near enough to want to wipe out millions of human beings.
A few clarifications: The Muslim mob set the train on fire in retaliation for the VHP's provocative destruction of the Babri Mosque. Secondly, there is absolutely no proof that churches are performing forced conversions in Orissa, and even if they were, there are legal remedies available, especially with a state government sympathetic to Hindus. Again, this is not meant to accuse only Hindus of doing terrible things, but to point out that both sides share the blame and putting all the blame on the Muslims only exposes the weakness of anaggie's position.
You are absolutely right once again in sentiments expressed by your words that I have highlighted in bold. As in many communally inspired riots there is more than one cause. How far would one go back in history? If you just follow the history of Babri Masjid, you will find that it's almost hopeless to pin the blame on one side or the other. It's an eye for an eye making every one blind. It's useful to ponder the timing of the destruction of Babri Masjid. Why did it wait until 1992 and not in 1948, 1965 or 1971? The number of Hindus who were weary of living with terrorism in the 80's, Sikh terrorism, operation Blue Star, assassinations of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, as well as Congress inspired attacks on innocent Sikhs after the assassination is the backdrop that made the landscape fertile for certain elements in BJP and it's affiliates to rally people like anaggie around in their cause.
There is no good answer to who should feel hurt more as regards to Babri Masjid! Muslims whose Mosque was destroyed by BJP inspired Hindus or Hindus who feel their scared Ram Janmabhoomi and the temple to commemorate Ram having been desecrated by Muslims. Both are wrong. In reality it's only an excuse that injury to adherents of either party is serious enough to kill hundreds of innocent people. Destruction of one mosque when compared to destruction of hundreds of temples over the history of India is a blip. It's a bit disingenuous to claim that destruction of Babri Masjid justifies the carnage that followed it.
Why can't Hindus calm down thinking "the temple, if it was indeed at the exact birth spot of Ram, (they don't stop to think how are they sure what the exact spot!) was destroyed many hundreds of years ago and destroying a mosque, even though it might have been in disuse and is also claimed to have been known as Ram Janmabhoomi Masjid, even among Muslims (I am not hundred percent sure of this), is not something Hindus should be proud of"? WHy didn't they stop to think what is it they intend to achieve by digging up the past?
Why is above question more relevant than the following question: "Why can't Muslims see that there is a definite possibility that a Ram temple of some sort might have existed and destroyed prior to construction of a mosque there, and that for the believers, it might be of great sentimental value!
I am sure there are people, who think like anaggie does, on both sides. While indulging them in a discussion, in hopes of making them see the dangers of their thinking is commendable, from what I have seen, there is not much hope in his case.
__________________
Those who sacrifice liberty of some to purchase a little temporary safety, will have neither liberty nor safety.
).
