Gotta pass it on - Page 2

Gemini Cricket · 08-07-2006, 04:19 PM

11.

Sac beat me to it. That quote was good.

Quote:

The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy.

Alex · 08-07-2006, 04:30 PM

A report on Buddhist violence targeting Muslins in Burma (from Human Rights Watch).

There aren't many religions that can claim purity unless they've never actually been in power, even the supposedly pacifist ones.

Cadaverous Pallor · 08-07-2006, 04:44 PM

I'm still here.

Violent Buddhists, wow.

Gemini Cricket · 08-07-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

FIVE years after the Taleban blew them up, Afghan labourers are picking up the pieces of two once-towering Buddha statues, hoping they will rise again and breathe new life into the poverty-striken Bamiyan province.

Source

Looks like they're trying to rebuild two of the three statues. Huge jigsaw puzzle this is.

Babette · 08-07-2006, 06:26 PM

Just to be clear (I'm blond you know), was this a new broadcast or the one from February? All common sense but she put it in just the right words. Amazing woman!

Alex · 08-07-2006, 06:43 PM

February.

innerSpaceman · 08-07-2006, 06:54 PM

Violent Buddhists brings up a good point: Are jews not terrorists because they don't want to be, or because they don't have to be? Would jews have blown up German citizens during the Holocaust as a means to terrorize the Nazis and their collaborators ... if they'd had the opportunity to do so?

I'm not aware of jews being particularly oppressed in the modern era. Find me some non-violent, ultra-opressed peoples and we might have a fair comparison.

Alex · 08-07-2006, 07:03 PM

The violent Bhuddhists doesn't support that question, they're the majority and hold the power in Burma. They don't have to be violent to throw off oppression. They're attacking Muslims simply because they don't like them and blame the minority for the larger economic problems the country faces.

Not that it isn't an valid question, and a point that I've raised before. Once "terrorism" (the targetting of civilians and civilian infrastructure to coerce political and military decisions) is the only tool left for what you perceive is justified resistance it seems that everybody easily finds a way to justify it.

There was not insignificant Jewish resistance to Nazi's during World War II in various areas, partiularly in parts of Poland and (at least to the extend I'm familiar with it) it was restrained to attacks on military targets. But their capabilities were pretty limited.

scaeagles · 08-07-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm not aware of jews being particularly oppressed in the modern era. Find me some non-violent, ultra-opressed peoples and we might have a fair comparison.

I guess it depends on what one considers to be ultra oppressed and if nonviolent is a choice or out of inability or fear.

I would regard living in a communist state as being ultra oppressive. Uprisings such as Tiananmen Square are quickly and violently quashed. Dissenters are thrown in prison. I think fear comes into play quite a bit.

I would suspect many tribes beholden to tribal violence in Africa would fall into the same category. They lack the means to fight back and fear reprisals if they do so.

innerSpaceman · 08-07-2006, 08:46 PM

But when you can't possibly fight back against a military power in these days of high technology, and you've still got fight left in you .... is fighting against the civilian power inevitable? What if that civilian power holds the ultimate sway over the political and military power? When do civilians become the legitimate target of those who have no other means to do battle, but whose battle is justified? Or is such warfare always illegitimate no matter what?

08-07-2006, 04:30 PM	#12
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	A report on Buddhist violence targeting Muslins in Burma (from Human Rights Watch). There aren't many religions that can claim purity unless they've never actually been in power, even the supposedly pacifist ones.
	Submit to Quotes

08-07-2006, 04:44 PM	#13
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	I'm still here. Violent Buddhists, wow. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

08-07-2006, 06:26 PM	#15
Babette Snubbed Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: cupcake heaven Posts: 433	Just to be clear (I'm blond you know), was this a new broadcast or the one from February? All common sense but she put it in just the right words. Amazing woman!
	Submit to Quotes

08-07-2006, 06:43 PM	#16
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	February.
	Submit to Quotes

08-07-2006, 06:54 PM	#17
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Violent Buddhists brings up a good point: Are jews not terrorists because they don't want to be, or because they don't have to be? Would jews have blown up German citizens during the Holocaust as a means to terrorize the Nazis and their collaborators ... if they'd had the opportunity to do so? I'm not aware of jews being particularly oppressed in the modern era. Find me some non-violent, ultra-opressed peoples and we might have a fair comparison.
	Submit to Quotes

08-07-2006, 07:03 PM	#18
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	The violent Bhuddhists doesn't support that question, they're the majority and hold the power in Burma. They don't have to be violent to throw off oppression. They're attacking Muslims simply because they don't like them and blame the minority for the larger economic problems the country faces. Not that it isn't an valid question, and a point that I've raised before. Once "terrorism" (the targetting of civilians and civilian infrastructure to coerce political and military decisions) is the only tool left for what you perceive is justified resistance it seems that everybody easily finds a way to justify it. There was not insignificant Jewish resistance to Nazi's during World War II in various areas, partiularly in parts of Poland and (at least to the extend I'm familiar with it) it was restrained to attacks on military targets. But their capabilities were pretty limited.
	Submit to Quotes

08-07-2006, 08:46 PM	#20
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	But when you can't possibly fight back against a military power in these days of high technology, and you've still got fight left in you .... is fighting against the civilian power inevitable? What if that civilian power holds the ultimate sway over the political and military power? When do civilians become the legitimate target of those who have no other means to do battle, but whose battle is justified? Or is such warfare always illegitimate no matter what?
	Submit to Quotes