CC1981 Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 when sh.it hits the fan and if your religion tells you to run for the hills ... it comes under the "Civilized" category. Suppose your religion tells you to stand up and deal with the sheet then its not Civilized. No,nothing wrong with dealing with the $hit. But committing little genocides and bloodbaths and simply pointing the finger at 'well they started it/did it first' (when it isnt true either in ALL instances) is not in my book of 'dealing with the ****'. Its more like 'losing it and using excuses to justify losing it'. It is religions that pretend to be pacifist but go around conducting their little private genocides and bloodbaths, just as a retaliatory excuse (and in some cases completely instigatory too) that are uncivilized. There is nothing civilized about mass murder on religious basis, regardless of what has been thrown at you. PERIOD. That is the hallmark of truely civilized religions, something that Hinduism lacks and thus is not really a truely civilized religion. It is more civilized than some others out there though- just not as civilized as some others out there, so a middle of the pack average one.
CC1981 Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 You're not getting away with that one. While historical causes can lend understanding to a situation they do not underline it. This is especially true for Mediaeval episodes. The cause of the current conflict go back to the Sinhala only act of 1956 and the subsequent tensions and riots etc. What is needed in Sri Lanka is an ongoing peace effort so both groups can live together. In blaming the Tamils wholesale for the problems facing Sri Lanka you are once again echoing the absolutist approach of some of the individuals here you claim to oppose. As regarding past and even ancient history what do you presume? Should countries or communities pay reparations and ask for forgiveness for events that happened outside living memory? Almost every country / religion / ethnicity etc. has blood on their hands. Your blaming of this or that group or individual is unhelpful and possibly prejudicial too. Again, all this PC-ness to justify hinduism's little private bloodbaths and genocides is not going to cut the mustard with me. GIVE ME evidence of where buddhists, jains or daoists have gone around mass-murdering people on religious basis like the hindus have done SEVERAL TIMES in the past. Your this 'almost every country/religion/ethnicity has blood on their hands' is not really true. Yes, most do, but there are some who do not. Take for example the filipinos- they've NEVER invaded anyone, they've NEVER waged ethnic cleansing or religious cleansing. Take for example Jains- NEVER have they killed in the name of religion. Hinduism has and hinduism has always used the 'muslim/christian' excuse to wage its own bloodbaths. Nomatter what, genocides and bloodbaths are NOT justified. You cannot point at muslims firebombing a train as a justification to go wantonly killing muslims- for that is hypocrasy, that is doing the same $hit you are condemning and that is just seeking an excuse to justify genocide-which again, almost every genocidal group has done in the past. And no, the current violence in SL is NOT from 1950s or any recent period- as i said, LOOK UP Sri lankan history- ever since the Cholas annihilated and genocided the Sinhala, there has been a more or less continuous conflict between the Sinhala kingdom and the South-india sponsored Tamils- even when the Vijayanagara was at power, they were sponsoring the Tamils to ethnically displace the Sinhala. Yes, as with any conflict spanning such huge timespans, there are periods of calm and periods of madness but it is simply selective history to blame an immediate cause for flaring the centuries old tension. The ultimate root cause of the Sinhala-Tamil conflict is the Chola Tamils comming over, annihilating Anuradhapura and centuries of Tamils ethnically displacing the Sinhala. The tide turned when the European colonial powers showed up and displaced the power structure in Sri Lanka by imposing theirs and now the pendulum is swinging the other way. Again i say- what goes around, comes around. I am not saying this justifies the SL army annihilating Tamil villages- that again is genocidal and just as bad. But the solution to this conflict most definitely requires the Tamils to take responsibility for their historical f*ckups and making concessions to the Sinhala majority. I've not implied either that I consider the Sinhala side to be exemplary in their conduct in the Sinhala-Tamil history-recent and ancient. I've not implied either that i consider any action against the Tamils in Sri Lanka to be justified. What i've said is that ultimately i see the Tamil community there to be the people who started the $hit. Vendettas have waged for centuries over this but the starting point was the Tamils simply showing up, annihilating the star Sinhala city (which happened to be one of the foremost cities in the world at that time- both in terms of population and civic development) and starting ethnic displacement of Sinhala from their own lands. So ultimately, you reap what you sow and now the pendulum has swung (and still is swinging) against the Tamil. I cannot say I consider the Sinhala to be truely culpable for the problems in Sri Lanka- the Tamils definitely take the lion's share of the blame there.
CC1981 Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 just curious....why would you ignore the relatively massive periods of peace amongst people from different religion and highlight only these blips to condemn an entire religion? I am not ignoring the periods of peace- which is why i CATEGORICALLY STATED MANY TIMES that Hinduism is nowhere as barbaric as Islam is. If i were not taking the periods of peace in hinduism into account, i wouldn't be making this kind of distinction between Hinduism and Islam, would I ? However i am most definitely disputing the tag of 'peaceful religion' and the comment 'Hindus have never been fanatics and they never will' that D_R makes. At the very least, my point proves without a shadow of doubt that Hindus have been fanatical blood-lusted annihlators atleast a few times. I am not a religious person and neither am i am atheist .( i am an agnost into philosophy, not into religion. I am not one of those who consider God to exist and there must be 'one true religion/XYZ is the true religion'. I am also not someone who jumps up and down saying 'God doesnt exist, all this is nonsense, i will do what complete Atheists do and p!$$ on all religions'. I am someone who simply does not CARE if God exists or not because on ethical levels, our behaviour/code of conduct is IRRELEVANT to God's existence and his/her wishes.) So i have little for or against any religion except what History leads me to conclude. It is pretty clear throughout history that Jainism, Buddhism & Daoism have been *THE* hallmark religions of pacifism and therefore, the tag of pacifism cannot really be used for other religions. It is also clear through history that Abrahamic religions have been progressively the most bloodthirsty of ALL religions i know of that exist today or have existed. Which is why i have been pretty pointed in exactly where i rate Hinduism- somewhere in the middle of the rung- not the most bloodthirsty maniacal religion but neither the most logical and benevolent of religions. I can understand your hindu-ness fundamentally clouding your viewpoint though for you obviously would not be a devout hindu unless you concluded at some level in your thought process that it is really the most beautiful or awesome religion out there. Same can be said about many posters who've contributed to this thread and it is also patently known that some of the posters that've contributed here are complete Hinduvtas who've argued for mass-deportation of Muslims out of India or some sort of equally Nazi-esque 'final solution'.
fineleg Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Pakistan should be destroyed Good joke :haha: Extremist view that. All people there are terrorists, is it? So, all the children and citizens there should die? How can you say that generalized sweeping statement of genocide?
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Meanwhile this is the best pakistan had to offer Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto just watch the language being used for Bangaldeshis by this statesman from pakistan. seriously if this is the best they have to offer then I am afraid their leadership cupboard is hopelessly empty 51I1WWXH0Gc Zulfi Bhutto calling bangaldeshi's names like suar ke bachchon on behest of the crowd..
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Good joke :haha: Extremist view that. All people there are terrorists, is it? So, all the children and citizens there should die? How can you say that generalized sweeping statement of genocide? U are good at makng non-sensical inferences.. USSR as an entity was destroyed , did any of those things mentioned in ur post happen there......... :giggle:
The Outsider Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 CC, do the deeds of their fathers and forefathers make the Tamil children "deserve" it? I surely hope you are not implying that.
maggot_brain Posted December 30, 2007 Posted December 30, 2007 Again' date=' [b']all this PC-ness to justify hinduism's little private bloodbaths and genocides is not going to cut the mustard with me. GIVE ME evidence of where buddhists, jains or daoists have gone around mass-murdering people on religious basis like the hindus have done SEVERAL TIMES in the past. Your this 'almost every country/religion/ethnicity has blood on their hands' is not really true. Yes, most do, but there are some who do not. Take for example the filipinos- they've NEVER invaded anyone, they've NEVER waged ethnic cleansing or religious cleansing. Take for example Jains- NEVER have they killed in the name of religion. An extrapolation taken straight out of yer arse. I've never defended Hinduism nor do I seek to. As for PC, well that's just a pseudo-liberal weapon to stifle debate on sensitive issues. As for the second bold quote, a tautology if ever I read one. Please try to understand the semantics of what I was saying before you spout off. Hinduism has and hinduism has always used the 'muslim/christian' excuse to wage its own bloodbaths. Nomatter what, genocides and bloodbaths are NOT justified. You cannot point at muslims firebombing a train as a justification to go wantonly killing muslims- for that is hypocrasy, that is doing the same you are condemning and that is just seeking an excuse to justify genocide-which again, almost every genocidal group has done in the past. Again an extrapolation. I do not seek to condone wanton killing of Muslims and never have. Again - straight out of yer arse. And no, the current violence in SL is NOT from 1950s or any recent period- as i said, LOOK UP Sri lankan history- ever since the Cholas annihilated and genocided the Sinhala, there has been a more or less continuous conflict between the Sinhala kingdom and the South-india sponsored Tamils- even when the Vijayanagara was at power, they were sponsoring the Tamils to ethnically displace the Sinhala. Yes, as with any conflict spanning such huge timespans, there are periods of calm and periods of madness but it is simply selective history to blame an immediate cause for flaring the centuries old tension. Am prepared to concede this point. I must admit to having a sparse knowledge of the subject, one does not learn much outside of the Anglosphere / Europe when studying History in the UK - at least in my experience.
maggot_brain Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 CC' date=' do the deeds of their fathers and forefathers make the Tamil children "deserve" it? I surely hope you are not implying that.[/quote'] IF he is, then the Pope would be proud, sins of the father / original sin and all.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 ok, sensible one... Hail all Hindus :D Translation: my BS was exposed again so I am reverting back to the cradle of smileys
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Govt does a u-turn on car's lever killing BB theory... Meanwhile BB was about to expose ISI plans to rig election and that throws another vested interset party in this murder mystery
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 There was joke in name of security for BB u can gauge from these two videos.. Mushy's security protocol [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=hvIPjGTpJXs]YouTube - Musharraf's Convoy[/ame] this is how u provide security while on the move [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=9q54SgGdoPw]YouTube - Narendra Modi - Arrival[/ame] this is how u do while leaders attend public meeting
maggot_brain Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Jesus, DR do you have to bring Modi into EVERYTHING?
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 People use examples from their own field of specialization mine is Modi these days..
maggot_brain Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 People use examples from their own field of specialization mine is Modi these days.. Right-o, did I detect a hint of sarcasm there?
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Why do u guys miss the obvious point with such a consistency and start debating peripheral issues..
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Let me add when soemone uses phrase as clean as whistle then topic of debate certainly is not whistle.. When someone uses the phrase dumb as bat then topic of debate is certainly not bat.. Ridiculous to say the least..
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Latest twist Doctor's claim the wound in her head didn't look like bullet gun-shot it was more like laser gun wound.. Those jihadi types don't have access to this technology but ISI has..
Recommended Posts