JKhedrup wrote:I didn't say Muslims in general. I very specifically stated the Indian Mujahadeen. Please respect the precision of the words I chose, it was of a specific organization so as to hold the entire Muslim community responsible for the acts of one fundamentalist outfit. (Just as the entire Buddhist community should not be pilloried for the bad behaviour of some Buddhists within Burma).
JKhedrup wrote:You obviously didn't read what I wrote at all.
Where did I write "uniquely capable". You are arguing against a statement I never made.
That is why I specifically mentioned that it is silly to argue against Christian Dominionist Fundamentalism (like many Liberals) and then refuse to point out the problems within Fundamentalist Islam (which actually does run several governments).
If people are going to argue against statements I never made it makes it very hard to have a rational discussion. It is good to quote eachother's points when discussions get heated.
It wasn't a direct quote because I thought it seemed fairly obvious by the inclusion of a book like "The Trouble With Islam" that you were wanting to bolster an argument about the exceptional nature of Islamic Terrorism, and I simply don't think it's exceptional.
Who refuses to point out the flaws of Fundamentalist Islam while pointing out the flaws of Christian dominionism?
Are you talking about the widespread use of terrorism by the invading forces, or the local resistance groups?JKhedrup wrote:One of the questions that needs to be asked that does not sit well with the politically correct identity politics paradigm, is why there is a widespread use of terrorism across the Muslim world.
I'm sorry, I have seen no evidence yet of the bombing at Bodhgaya being an action carried out by the Indian Mujahadeen. Do you have links to any respectable sources reporting this evidence?JKhedrup wrote:I didn't say Muslims in general. I very specifically stated the Indian Mujahadeen. Please respect the precision of the words I chose, it was of a specific organization so as to hold the entire Muslim community responsible for the acts of one fundamentalist outfit. (Just as the entire Buddhist community should not be pilloried for the bad behaviour of some Buddhists within Burma).
JKhedrup wrote:In the context of the discussion, Greg (Bombing in Indonesian Buddhist temple), the reasons for the popularity of terrorism as a method within some Muslim organizations.
If you want to condemn drone strikes, the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, human rights abuse in Isreal, and a useless foreign presence in Afghanistan I will be happy to join you. I find all of those issues upsetting and worthy of concern.
But here we are talking about grassroots movements specifically targeting human beings and religious sites with bombs, and to derail that seems disingenuous.
It is really easy for us Western Buddhists to sit back and be politically correct because we live in countries where our lives are not threatened by such militant activities. But our fellow practitioners in many other places in the world are very much at risk.
In the town I live in, local pro-israel groups not only tried to shut down a legal boycott, but attempted to use the courts (and where denied) to silence the the pro-boycott voices.
Not being an academic, maybe I just can't see what you are talking about, because in non-Academic life here in the US (from my own perspective of course), there is criticism of islam everywhere you look, most of it shockingly ignorant, a small bit valid and thought-provoking.
So you consider the actions of a couple of deperate fundamentalists terrorism, but you do not consider the wanten destruction of whole countries and their populations as terrorism?
Let's put things in perspective: number of innocent people killed in terrorist attacks on Buddhist temples in India and Indonesia by Muslim fundamentalists (zero) vs number of innocent people killed by terrorist attacks by Buddhists in Burma (official toll as reported by Burmese regime 78 dead and over 100,000 forced to flee their homes and currently living in refugee camps).
Incarceration rates??? The US tops the list with 716 per 100,000 citizens. The first Muslim country (Azerbaijan) comes in at position number 14 with 413 per 100,000 and the next Muslim country is Kazakstan at position 36 with 295 per 100,000.
And what of the destruction by occupying forces of places of worship and the danger to the practitioners of Islam? Or is that too politically correct?
I'm sorry, I have seen no evidence yet of the bombing at Bodhgaya being an action carried out by the Indian Mujahadeen. Do you have links to any respectable sources reporting this evidence?
Of course it is, but let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees.JKhedrup wrote:The topic of this thread is a bomb in an Indonesian Buddhist temple. Is that not also condemnable?
If I remember correctly I said: "...this is not to say that some Islamic regimes are not nasty and opressive pieces of work..."Do you honestly think is this continues no one will be killed? How many people have been killed due to Islamic fundamentalism in the Muslim world itself? Ethnic tensions between Shia and Sunni fundamentalists? Christians? Homosexuals? Islamic fundamentalism has led to many deaths.
Yes, well, I kind of find that unlikely, but anyway...I mention politically correct because the same LGBT rights supporters who pillory Christian fundamentalists in the US for not supporting same-sex marriage remain strangely silent on the issue of homosexuality being a capital offense in several Muslim countries, and refuse to critique the Islamic scriptural edicts behind these laws.
Are you sure? I seem to remember a well known president making some vaguely theological remarks to justify the invasion of Iraq.Terrible, but none of those occupying forces would make a theological argument in favour of such atrocities.
Because Mecca and Medina do not have indigenous Hindu or Buddhist populations whereas India has an indigenous Muslim population?India has several mosques stone's throw away from the Bodh Gaya stupa and several important Hindu shrines (despite the history of Muslim conquerors building mosques directly on top of destroyed temples). Would the Islam allow us to construct a temple in the cities of Mecca or Medina? Why not?
Bzzzztttt... wrong. There are Indian people that are Muslims. There are countless Indian people that have voluntarily taken Islam as their religion. The Boers are not Africans. The religion is not indigenous (like Christianity is not indigenous to Europe and America) but many of the people that have decided to embrace the religion are.Konchog1 wrote:Muslims are indigenous to India in the same sense that the Boers are indigenous to South Africa.
No, not if the military actions kill countless innocent people too (ie terrorise innocent people).jeeprs wrote:Isn't it possible to make a distinction between terrorist acts and military actions to attempt to prevent terrorism?
There is a possibility that if the military occupation forces were not there in the first place that the terrorist actions would not be taking place.It seems to me that planting bombs in temples or sending suicide bombers or bomb-laden vehicles into mosques and marketplaces is not morally equivalent to military action taken to try and prevent such acts from occuring.
So you are saying that the occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechenya, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Palestine, Tamil Sri Lanka, etc... and the funding of dictatorships in various 3rd world countries are morally superior actions, and that those opposing these actions are morally inferior?I think that if you say that the acts of terrorists and those who try and disrupt terrorist organisations are morally equivalent then really you just have to accept that terrorism will be a constant threat to everyone from now on.
Users browsing this forum: treehuggingoctopus and 6 guests