Bangladesh: "Offended" Muslims burn 100 Buddhist homes, 10 temples

Population of Bangladesh - 160,000,000
People participating in the burning - 500?
Total percentage of ****ing morons - 0.000003125%

Islam bashers - Damn these Moslems! Islam sucks!

Makes sense to me.


With that said, there is of course a problem with these people and the way they interpret Islam. If I could, I would personally arrest all these idiots and throw them in jail.

 

In Muslimistan?

lol

Depends on where obviously.

 

Can we just sticky a "Muslims mad and did..." thread so we trash up the D&D.

 

I really hope they don't..

Buddhism isn't a pacifist religion but in a situation like this a violent response by the Buddhist community in Bangladesh will make things worse.

 

Considering the US and allies have invaded and occupied two primarily Muslim countries and carries out bombings and other military attacks in several others in response to an act of violence I hardly think the Western World has been a doorstep to all these acts of violence.

 

It sounds like your argument goes something like this: Since ALL is “bad” then one is no worse than the other…so why go there. Then you went on to say it’s circumstance of the poor. Question: who do you think is going to kill another being and destroy their symbols, a free poor or an oppressed poor?

Again, and as a Missourian once said, “I’m from the show me state”. I just don’t see the pushback from other Muslims. I hear you, and commend your level-headiness on this board, but I don’t see any effort to curb the extremist besides from the west.

And finally, as far as I’m concern religion is the destructive end of spirituality (pun intended). But I get it and happily watch people find their God any way they can be it a religion or the back of a cave…BUT not at the expense of other’s religion or cave.

 

exactly that's my point, they need to make it worse for the local Muslims. then the local Muslims that are "good" will (or should) put pressure on the "bad" Muslims.

Standing by while the locals burn down your holy sites is weak and reasoning/protesting 'aint gonna do ****.

you burn my holy site, i burn yours. that's the only way the local savages will stop with this you offended me bull ****.

 

so why do 160 million Muslims stand by and let 500 Muslims hijack their religion? WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?!?!

 

No that just means that those local savages just return to burn and kill more of the Buddhists.

A cycle of tribal violence is never a good solution especially for a minority group. While the rest of those Bangladeshi Muslims start getting word of that angry Buddhists killing Muslims what's to stop them from killing the rest of the Buddhist?

Think about it this way. Your brother who has always been a hot head goes and beats up a neighboring kid. You see the neighboring kid's older brother beating the crap out of your brother. Now do you stand by and just let that happen because your brother is a hot head or do you defend your brother?

 

1) I didn't say all is bad.

2) I didn't say it's only circumstances of the poor. I said it's various circumstances that form patterns. Everything else is randomly and mostly equally spread out.

3) Between a free poor and an oppressed poor, no one is just going to kill people. I believe that an oppressed poor will resort to violence sooner than a free poor person. Poverty and freedom are not the only two factors, I assume you meant all other things held constant.

Other Muslims are not going to push back anymore than anyone else. Ever. Has never happened with any ideology where extremists have done something. Will never happen on the scale you expect. Moderate Muslims do not feel like they share the same beliefs as extremist Muslims because they differ in a core belief - that resorting to violence for small reasons is acceptable/unacceptable. They feel no sense of unity with those people, no responsibility for their actions, nothing. Nothing at all. Like you, moderate Muslims hate it. Like you, they distance themselves from it. Like you, they do not believe in it. So to them, it is as logical to not have a moderate Muslim response to extremist Muslim actions, as it is to not have a moderate Christian or Buddhist or Hindu response to extremist Muslims actions. Moderates of different religions share more similar beliefs than moderates and extremists of the same religion.

I'm with you on the last point, as are moderate religious people of all creeds, as are non-religious people, as are agnostics. It's hardly unique. The only people preaching hatred and violence are the extremist ideologists of each group. I don't wish to join that group on any side.

 

You are right, I wish more Muslims would speak up and condemn these attacks. I think there have been a few demonstrations in the ME where Muslims have come together and said the idiots do not represent them.

But there are two main problems with more people speaking up:

1. The minority will always be more vocal
2. Peaceful demonstrations don't make for good media. So maybe they just aren't making it on TV in western media?

 

wow...a more idiotic argument could not be made.

 

RocketRaccoon,

Here is your "speaking out" people:

Incidentally an excellent way to win votes too.

Here is a more positive result:

SuperBeeKay,

http://news.yahoo.com/bangladesh-vows-protect-buddhists-attacks-085654624.html

 

Capitalism?

 

I'll randomly jump in:

Are you trying to say the minority will always speak out more on a "percentage" basis? Probably true, but if the numbers are what you represent - that is 159,999,500 vs. 500, then as you note it doesn't take a high % to form one vocal group. So the majority should have no problem finding 1,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 even to be more vocal.

I don't think the issue is that the minority will always be more vocal. rather, it's that perhaps the majority doesn't choose to be more vocal in this case. which gets us nowhere, because that's the question.... why?

The role of media is an interesting subplot to it all isn't it. I don't know how the media works globally, especially in those areas.

In westernized countries, while I believe that peaceful demonstrations don't make for as good media as violent act reporting, I do think that in the wake of the violent acts, there's enough coverage and eyeballs that it provides an opportunity for the apparently peaceful majority to be EXTREMELY more vocal. Which at least according to US media, they don't appear to be doing.

I hate the repetitive nature of these threads as much as the next guy.

But there's only so much you can say about ATW one-man vendetta before realizing that if there were just less of these events, there'd be less for him to report. Certainly he's shown his colors, so to speak, and I expect to see some hypocrisy from him when it is something like the Norway incident (see his and others immediate reaction to that thread).

But I think we'd all love to be able to combat his bigger point in a better way, without somewhat apologetically noting how peaceful demonstrations just can't get the media coverage they need or how the vast vast vast vast vast majority (apparently) is somehow being drowned out by the very few.

 

Correct answer.

 

Missing the whole point, you're going back to words. Infidel and Muslim. Bin Laden thought non-sunnis and some sunnis are infidels, and among the rest those who do not engage in violent jihad are failed Muslims. This shows that these are meaningless subjective terms. Every single person defines those terms differently. Do you deny that there are Catholics who feel closer to the abusive priests than infidels - going so far as to protect them? Or did you forget?

"In Roman Catholic Christianity, the term "infidel" is an ecclesiastical term referring to one who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus or one who has not been baptized."

There are proportionately more violent Muslims because there are proportionately in worse circumstances. Plus there are at least a billion of them.

Rich, free, and well-educated Muslims aren't engaging in violence no matter how strictly they hold onto their religion. Despite reading the same Quran, and believing in the general concept of infidels/Muslims, Islamic imperialism, etc. You can point out exceptions but they are... exceptions.

Push-back against extremists from moderates is rare and as I've mentioned a serious danger in these cases. I don't see small bankers out there apologizing for the black hole their more extremist counter parts tore open. I don't see peace loving Americans apologizing to the Middle East for the dems and repubs. I don't see you apologizing for neo nazis. You condemn them, yes. But didn't you say yourself you feel no sense of responsibility for the actions of the Nazis? We don't expect it from you and you don't expect it from you - even though you both believe in German nationalism and oppose immigration. Is this enough to group you with them? Hell no. The subjective terms are vague, and it's unethical to group people this way. There are occassional apologies - which I acknowledge are well-intentioned and good hearted, but still unnecessary and fruitless.

You show me a pattern of irrational violence, and I will show you the horrendous circumstances which led to it. Muslims like Christians like Buddhists like Jews are what their situation makes them. It was the case in the early 1900's where Muslims were the freedom fighters and Jews were engaging in terrorism. Was that cause of their religion or because they were in horrendous circumstances? It was the case that Americans engaged in terrorism against the British - was that because of their religion or ideology, or was it because the British imposed harsh conditions on them and their beliefs and their politics and their education and so on?

Today it's Muslims. The players are different. But the game is the same. It so happens that of the group which calls itself Muslim, many are in conditions of modern slavery, poverty, oppression, poor education, no options, bleak future, etc. Within that group which calls itself Muslim, those who are in better circumstances behave less violently. That's why Pakistan is in trouble. The UAE is not. Yemen is in trouble. Oman is not.

When it changes - and I assure you, as history has shown, it's when and not if - then the next frontier for the bigots is African nationalism. It is a tribal and inherently violent ideology with terrible roots they will say. It is going to be the end of humanity they will say. They need to be occupied, their leaders must be bribed, their moderates must be held responsible for their extremists. Look at the news they'll say, not a day passes without them engaging in overreactive violence they'll say. It has nothing to do with how we collectively raped their continent for centuries they'll say. Because they all happen to love this vague concept of Africa, they are the same they'll say. I probably won't be alive to see it, but one day, it will happen. Muslims will be forgotten, just like the brutal history of the British and Europeans and Americans and Australians and Christians and Jews and all the other ideologies. "We have become more civilized since then so we must teach them." Yeah right. That's what the Muslims said about Spain before invading half of it.