

Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims? - primelens
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306

======
john_i
The BBS in Sri Lanka are also agitating against the Christian community. They
are essentially making a lot of noise along the lines of how the great
Sinhala-Budhist ethnicity is being eroded by minority influences. This is in a
country where Sinhalese make up about 70% of the population.

Hair brained conspiracy theories of hidden population control methods are
always popping up on the FB pages of these hate groups. An example is the
contraceptive laced toffees that are handed out at the counter of a popular
clothing store chain owned by a Muslim family.

It's all just mindblowingly ridiculous. People just looking for reasons to be
assholes to others.

------
auctiontheory
This idea of Buddhists being pacifist vegetarians is very Western - it's
nothing I've read or observed in my travels around Asia. Being vegetarian in
Thailand is close to impossible (I stopped trying), even though it is a
Buddhist country.

~~~
lake99
Not Western at all. I'm an Indian, and I tend to think of Buddhists as
pacifists too. Yes, Buddhism spread with the power of Buddhist-sympathizer
kings. But when I look at (what little there is of) Indian history, I see
Brahmins being frightened by the spread of Buddhism, and challenging them to
public debates. The loser would have to become the winner's disciple in some
cases, or be exiled, or be put to death in other cases.

What I don't see, looking at Indian Buddhists, is the brutality that's
typically associated with other mainstream religions.

~~~
waps
Hmmm given that you're talking about India, I wonder which "brutal" religion
exactly you mean.

From the article: "The global climate is crucial. People believe radical Islam
to be at the centre of the many of the most violent conflicts around the
world. They feel they are at the receiving end of conversion drives by the
much more evangelical monotheistic faiths. And they feel that if other
religions are going to get tough, they had better follow suit."

Same phenonmenon there too "Evangelical monotheistic faiths". They don't mean
Christians. Note also the generalized "many of the most violent conflicts
around the world". The inability to name the obvious.

Why is it racist to point out that islam is involved in pretty much every
conflict worldwide (with the west, east, north, south, white, black, yellow,
brown, ...), and that this situation has been a constant through history (ever
since it exists) ? Islam got started with a campaign of genocide, and everyone
can name 5 places the very same thing is happening today. If you study history
you will learn that this situation is the norm of the last 15 centuries, not
the exception. If people start thinking that that may not be a coincidence,
that is a VERY understandable viewpoint.

~~~
lake99
The barbaric religions, in the Indian context, are Hinduism, Islam, and
Christianity. Of the three, Christians have lost the power they used to have,
and have taken to subtler tactics, i.e. of brainwashing children, etc. (Take
kids on a trip. Stop the bus mid-way in the forest. Pretend the bus has broken
down. Tell the kids that if we pray hard enough, Jesus will fix it. etc.)

Hindus and Muslims are as brutal as each other. Hindus and Muslims behaved
equally badly during the Partition of India. For a more recent example, look
at the Gujarat riots. Hindus can be terrorists too, the Government chooses not
to see it that way. The media and the people are too damn scared to call it
that.

Go ahead, point out that Islam is at the center of every conflict. I will not
interpret it as racism. I will merely point out to you that you are
inaccurate.

~~~
waps
> Go ahead, point out that Islam is at the center of every conflict. I will
> not interpret it as racism. I will merely point out to you that you are
> inaccurate.

I actually like the point that you're making, but the data you use to
illustrate it is woefully inadequate.

Your example, the Gujarat riots. The third sentence from the wikipedia article
on the subject : "On 27 February 2002, the Sabarmati Express train was
attacked at Godhra by a Muslim mob.[2][3][4][5] 58 Hindu pilgrims returning
from Ayodhya were killed in the attack."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence>

The aftermath of that is what you might expect. The rest of the article has
such little tidbits as calls for genocide being broadcast from mosques, in
code, which obviously means that muslims were planning a genocide beforehand
(or they wouldn't have had time to spread the code).

The gujarat riots were an example of their standard modus operandus : small
number of muslims successfully goading a large number of muslims into
committing genocide, and losing the battle. I've seen groups try the same in
Brussels (thankfully unsuccessfully). But don't worry, they were only trying
to get muslims to shoot automatic weaponry at citizens because of graffiti on
the mosque (graffiti was related to Europe). Needless to say this was
officially declared "an incident of a reaction against religious intolerance".
I even know why : because stating the truth had a good chance of making the
muslims attack again.

Did "both sides commit atrocities" yes. However, one side can make a VERY
strong case it was defending itself. Furthermore given all other incidents,
from partition and subsequent genocide in Pakistan but not in India to the
many other instances of violence, I would suspect that was the case even
without the many indications in the article that this was a coordinated plan
for genocide against hindus run from the local mosques that got out of hand.

I think you see why this is unlikely to sway my opinion. Please, do try again,
because I really don't want to think islam and muslims are at war with
everybody else, which can't end in anything but massive religious intolerance
world-wide. But what you've given as examples does the exact opposite you
intended.

~~~
lake99
The train was returning from Ayodhya, the center of another religious
controversy [1]. It's one thing to serve mob-justice to the people who burnt
the train, it's an entirely different thing to "serve" it to all kinds of
Muslims who are completely unconnected to the original train-burning, to
children, to babies. The Hindus too started violence across the massive state
of Gujarat immediately. I doubt that the Hindus were planning genocide
beforehand too. But the truth is that sensational news spread quickly, even
for some trivial events[2]. Both sides will play the "defence" card, even when
attacking children.

Hindu terrorists[3] do not need to be attacked to begin hostilities. The
Mangalore case[4] is fairly famous in India. But apart from that, one often
hears stories of gift shops getting attacked for selling valentine's day
cards, unmarried couples getting attacked on valentine's day for fairly
trivial displays of affection, etc.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle> The news of this idiocy
spread, through just word-of-mouth, all over India in just one day

[3] practically no one calls them that

[4] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Mangalore_pub_attack>

~~~
waps
You seem to be confused about what I'm claiming happened. You say retaliation
against groups because of what other members of the same group did because
they were members of that group is not reasonable.

On an intellectual level I concur, but I also realize that such a system is
easy to game, and therefore cannot exist. Therefore group attacks, and group
retaliation are a necessity, and they will exist regardless of what we
rationally or morally feel justice should be. It's not a question of having
this morally justified, no more than questioning the morality of a volcanic
eruption anyway.

As for [1], that happened during the mughal conquest of India. Again, any
violence against muslims during that time was as justified as violence against
nazis was in WWII. Muslim invaders were genociding through India at the time,
loss of life of that conquest, which included the building of that mosque, run
from the hundreds of millions up to a billion dead. Number [4] is such a
trivial event I don't get why you even mention it. Drunks do that on a
bimonthly basis 200 meter from where I'm sitting. Furthermore I would like to
point out that in most muslim countries, those girls would have been slowly
stoned to death, as a matter of general policy.

I don't fully get the point your making. When pointing out muslim atrocities,
I point to multiple religious genocides, and you say that the other side is
"equally guilty" because of the destruction of a building and scaring a few
girls. I hope you understand that these things are not comparable.

~~~
lake99
I am not sure what you mean by " Therefore group attacks, and group
retaliation are a necessity, and they will exist regardless...", so I'm
curious why you are singling out Islam, when group violence has been
inevitable across all races, religions and cultures.

The part of [1] that triggered hostilities between Hindus and Muslims was the
demolition of Babri Mosque by Hindu fundamentalists. Demolition of that makes
about as much sense as the destruction of some university building that the
British built when they were here.

[4] was not about drunks beating up girls. It was about some religious
activists (who were not drunk, but drugged on religion) entering a pub and
beating up girls. Some of them had to be hospitalized. But you know, this fits
the definition of terrorism! Also read the justification offered by their
leader. Nothing has stopped Hindu terrorists from killing[5]. Hindu terrorists
can kill for communal reasons too, not just for religious ones[6].

> in most muslim countries, those girls would have been slowly stoned to death

I am _not_ a fan of Islam. I have openly said that their book is not just
stupid, but insane. I would be stoned to death too. My only point was that
there is no reason to claim that Hindus and Christians are immune from
becoming terrorists.

[5] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Staines>

[6] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_October_2008_All-
India_Railw...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_October_2008_All-
India_Railway_Recruitment_Board_examination_attack)

~~~
waps
Since you clearly claim moral equivalence, I seem to have missed your
explanation about why the demolition of a building and beating a few girls in
a bar is the same thing as committing genocide against millions of people,
decades long.

The point I was making with the drunks was not that those Hindus were drunk or
not, the point was that their behavior was no worse than what can reasonably
be expected to happen (not too often, and other caveats apply of course) where
drunk people go out. Muslims would have slowly stoned them to death (and do
this regularly), so again it just does not compare :

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRaLcbxpIsw>

> I am not sure what you mean by " Therefore group attacks, and group
> retaliation are a necessity, and they will exist regardless...", so I'm
> curious why you are singling out Islam, when group violence has been
> inevitable across all races, religions and cultures.

I am not singling out islam. I do not think islam is the only group that
exhibits completely unacceptable violent and self-destructive behavior
patterns, and I know of a lot of (small) groups that are attacked by the
police/"the system", as a group, because of such behavior. Visit western
Europe once, where you will find every country has it's political party "the
system" attacks (ie. police, army, ... are used against that group). And
frankly, they're right to do that in most cases.

Islam is the only really sizable such unacceptable group, and the only one
that is a threat to world peace, not because of anything individual members
do, but because of the behavior of the group as a whole, and the consequences
thereof.

Once the violence grows beyond a certain threshold, the only possible reaction
is retaliation against the group. You can call this tragedy of the commons,
it's very similar to that. I think you may simply not have considered that
such a threshold exist, and what it might be. Visit Delhi and talk to a few
people there, and you will know what I mean and that India is not far removed
from that threshold.

> I am not a fan of Islam. I have openly said that their book is not just
> stupid, but insane. I would be stoned to death too. My only point was that
> there is no reason to claim that Hindus and Christians are immune from
> becoming terrorists.

And I don't claim that any group is immune from producing a
terrorists/criminals. I only claim that, with a few small exceptions, no other
religion explicitly causes terrorism, genocide and worse as a matter of
general policy, and celebrates it like they do. I claim that there is no
choice, and a lot of lives and damage would be spared by attacking islam
itself now, before they succeed at creating yet another mass-genocide. Before
they cross the threshold.

------
primelens
"But however any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a
Faustian pact with state power."

This. The basic fallacies of any religious doctrine when mixed with the desire
for power makes for a dangerous cocktail.

------
wangii
cool. is Dalai Lama an exception?

------
jlujan
tl;dr

"If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your
worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important
duty of all."

I'll take "What is the definition of succinct for 1000 Trebeck"

