6 ms·

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 whe

by lake99 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    > 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 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 13y ago
      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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Mangalore_pub_attack

by lake99 13y ago

waps 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 13y ago
  > 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 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 13y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Janmabhoomi [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_milk_miracle 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Mangalore_pub_attack