This place sure goes in "spurts"

[Ignazio Palmisano]

Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> Ignazio Palmisano wrote:
>> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>>  
>>>> Yes, all 27 of them. RADICAL is the adjective that will be forgot, 
>>>> and muslim has been the boogeyword for the recent years. There is 
>>>> about a billion of them, what's the radical confrontational 
>>>> percentage? Five percent would mean an army of fifty million 
>>>> berserker warriors attacking all and everything "west". The rest of 
>>>> the world wouldn't stand a chance.
>>>>
>>>> Guys with guns and in need of something to shoot at, that's a better 
>>>> description of the small small minority that you are describing. 
>>>> Unfortunately they are in command in some places, unfortunately 
>>>> again not all these places are "east", as the next point pictures 
>>>> perfectly.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I don't know...Indonesia has the highest proportion of Muslims in the 
>>> world and some really scary things have happened there recently. 
>>> Cannibalism and ethnic cleansing were easily carried out. Now if they 
>>> had the guns to take on the West...
>>>
>>> Just keep hoping that Muslim countries keep getting secular minded 
>>> leaders that are not intent on getting the gun power.
>>>     
>>
>>
>> But that's my point, we should hope for any leader to keep their head 
>> off their bibles/korans/torahs/whatever and leave the gunpowder for 
>> fireworks. Categorizing by Muslim/Christian/etc is the right way NOT 
>> to do that.
>>   
> No? Hmm. Well, when a sizable force made of the members of the same 
> faith...how else would you call it? If it is not in line with what they 
> believe, then why bother following the fanatic?

What I mean is that categorization is a first step to NOT leave the 
gunpowder to fireworks. First draw a line, then call yourself different 
from those on the other side, then call them enemies. Then sit back and 
watch while war begins.

> 
> Christendom has shown that they are perfectly capable of carrying out 
> atrocities. The World Wars is evidence. I am just pointing out that 
> those in the East are just as capable if you have any notions to the 
> contrary. Whether Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Shinto.

Never thought any different, there is no exclusive right on being a 
vicious b***rd. Have I said that, or let that be understood? My bad then.

>> BTW cannibalism is not preached by any of the mentioned religions, so 
>> I would wait a minute before saying that it was done by any specific 
>> sect...
>>
>>   
> I guess I had atrocities in mind. But for this particular point, I think 
> we can call Maoism a religion then. Guess what he got the Chinese 
> populace in mainland China to do during the 'Cultural' Revolution. Yup, 
> he got them all primitive again. What a revolution. Atheism itself is a 
> religion.
> 

For that matter, the russian flavour of revolution has done just the 
same. Atheism has been used as an excuse, just as the bible or the koran 
have been used as excuses.

By itself, whatever I believe will happen to me after I die cannot be a 
reason to go kick someone else. But obviously that's not the way you'll 
hear it from _any_ guy with a religious manifesto and a personal agenda.

>>>>        
>>>>> They'll use any excuse they
>>>>> can find. If they can't find any, they'll make them up.
>>>>>             
>>>> WMD anyone? (and the government of my country pretended to believe, 
>>>> so it's not like I'm taking the high ground and playing 
>>>> sanctimonious...)
>>>> I.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Recent incidents would lead me to take the stand that they are 
>>> perfectly capable of WMD'ing anyone should they have the firepower 
>>> and a fanatic leader.
>>>     
>>
>> THEY who? WMDs were a made up excuse to wage war on Iraq. MANY have 
>> the ability to use such weapons, e.g., all countries with nuclear 
>> capabilities. Some of them might have the recklessness to use them, or 
>> some other kind of forbidden weapon or technique (human shields? white 
>> phosphorus? poisonous gas? Anyone care to lengthen the list?), but it 
>> would be a naive generalization to think that the only ones who would 
>> use them would be in the "east", or be muslim, etc.
>> "Recent incidents" show that recklessness with civilian lives is not 
>> an exclusive of one faith or another, and neither are lies to convince 
>> people whoever is in command is right.
>> I.
>>
>>   
> 
> 
> What do you think will happen if either or both Pakistan and India get 
> religious fanatics as leaders?

I bet my left arm that a lot of innocent people will die. But how is 
this against my point?

> There is no human solution to these problems. Humans are part of the 
> problem no matter what their creed.

No matter the creed all right. No solution? Mmmm call me a dreamer...
I.