4 ms·

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

by 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

waps 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Staines [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_October_2008_All-India_Railway_Recruitment_Board_examination_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_October_2008_All-India_Railw...
  - waps 13y ago
    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 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.

by lake99 13y ago

waps 13y ago

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 13y ago
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Staines [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_October_2008_All-India_Railway_Recruitment_Board_examination_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_October_2008_All-India_Railw...
- waps 13y ago
  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 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.