Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I think the idea that every nutcase needs to be heard and understood is misguided. Some of you seem to ignore the fact that something called Jihad exists and that there are people out there who would want to convert people by force. When someone is at that point there is no negotiating, its an inviable situation.
Same goes with extremist Christians in the USA who want to take over the government and school system. Both should be opposed.
The analogies with Gandhi and MLK are way out there. They were fighting for equality and freedom, while here its a fight against a man who wants to mass murder civilians in the name of Islam.
:clap:
I'm choosing to be compassionate toward his victims.
We shouldn't underestimate the power of an individual to change the world, for better or for worse. Bin Laden had a peculiar set of personal characteristics that made him a great leader for his cause. The next-best bin Laden would likely had not accomplished nearly as much as he. Same with the next-best Hitler, or Ghandi or Einstein, etc.
I think the idea that every nutcase needs to be heard and understood is misguided. Some of you seem to ignore the fact that something called Jihad exists and that there are people out there who would want to convert people by force. When someone is at that point there is no negotiating, its an inviable situation.
Same goes with extremist Christians in the USA who want to take over the government and school system. Both should be opposed.
The analogies with Gandhi and MLK are way out there. They were fighting for equality and freedom, while here its a fight against a man who wants to mass murder civilians in the name of Islam.
I think the question to ask now is: Why does he want to mass murder civilians to begin with? Because him and his comrades were jailed, beaten and tortured, with the help of the US, simply for being political activists. Sending someone to jail, torturing and killing them, tends to turn people into violent extremists. They didn't start out that way to begin with. Something happened that caused them to become this way. Brutal actions of the US, and others, against the Muslim brotherhood, helped cause jihad to come into existence to begin with. Jihad is a movement of defense and retaliation, not a crusade of conversion. If you torture and kill people. It is simply foolish to expect them to not retaliate against you. Sept 11 was an act of retaliation.
What happens at 13:10 is particularly significant.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
More reflections on the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
"Personally I feel indifferent about his death - I don't think it will bring that big a change. I feel happy for the people who feel that justice was served, and I feel sorry for Osamas family and friends."
In the early days of the “war on terror” I heard a smart comment from an expert. She said you can not win a “war” against a strategy. The strategy of indiscriminate killing is as effective as ever.
The strategy wasn’t invented by Islamsists anyways. Now that I think of it. One iconic example of its application is the destruction of two major Japanese cities near the end of WWII. Now I don’t want to make a point against the USA and I am certainly not defending Al Qaeda.
I just wish to make the depressing point that the killing of OBL doesn’t solve one single problem. The path of indiscriminate killing will be taken by lonely people seeking attention, by religious and political fanatics and under the right circumstances by civilized countries. It will be taken again and again, because it works.
The outcome – in other words - of the “war on terror” is certain. Terror wins.
I think the word terrorist basically dehumanises the people and the actions. It can be all to convenient to call people labels and then believe them. I am not saying there are not people who do very regrettable and awful things..but I think we should be very careful about the words we use and how much it covers things over.
Understanding takes time and observation, something media outlets no longer offer us. They offer us instead the blanket statements and effects espoused by the politicians and corporate leaders of our day and age. It is unfortunate, but true, I think. Therefore, it might help for each of us to also look deeper into the issues, including understanding the reasons and historeies and also to look at how dangerous it is for us to just listen blanket, or to accept easy (unfortunate) words like terrorism and terrorists.
_/\_
By the way I had often noticed how after the 9/11 attackse George W Bush was working in the name of God (he thought this, it was reported, and they said he was a religious man whom oft prayed) and so was, at the time, Osama Bin Laden. Both fighting for God, for people, for justice, for revenge? Each the other an enemy, an evil terrorist?
I think the question to ask now is: Why does he want to mass murder civilians to begin with? Because him and his comrades were jailed, beaten and tortured, with the help of the US, simply for being political activists. Sending someone to jail, torturing and killing them, tends to turn people into violent extremists. They didn't start out that way to begin with. Something happened that caused them to become this way. Brutal actions of the US, and others, against the Muslim brotherhood, helped cause jihad to come into existence to begin with. Jihad is a movement of defense and retaliation, not a crusade of conversion. If you torture and kill people. It is simply foolish to expect them to not retaliate against you. Sept 11 was an act of retaliation.
I often wondered what it would take to motivate people to live lives like that and bomb themself etc for causes. Sure some are brainwashed very ealy on. I have seen movies depicting this type of violence in South Africa - taking children at a very early age and effecting dehumanising them and making them child soldiers ie killers. The brutality was and is frightening. And yet I think also people in comfortable environments with food on the table and loving households, safe households, who do not feel jolted and prodded, why would they do that. I don't think they would do it willingly. I think the causes are larger at hand to this 'enemy' issue, and I hope we will all have enough light shining to see it through to a good resolution one day.
it's scary to think about. for instances the germans who supported hitler, weren't dumb or ignorant. they were smart people. it's very scary to think about how even smart people can be manipulated into almost surrealistic situations.
Are you sure? Perhaps I might also take up a cause if I saw my brothers (and sisters) hurt, maimed, repressed, violated etc. I am not saying this type of thinking or the effects of it are right - not by any means - but are you sure that you can say he represents 'only anarchy'? Sounds convenient of course, and also naturally it is easier to kill or maim another who is only 'anarchy' but somehow, I doubt reality is as simple as we might like to make it. Or how we might divide it in our minds.
I also think that it is people who are into this Jihad or what we call extremism that have also painted us in the West so simplistically too. The evil head of the snake of Israel. Or a bunch of consumptio hungry hedonistic God violating zombies. Or ... etc. It also makes it easier for them to kill or hurt us. And to demonise, to make rational what they are devoting their life's work to.
It is all sad on both sides IMO but in my experience also there are no easy answers...or ways about this. Even Obama, if he did not do this, those that might ride over him, well the would be crazier I think. ..
For example, I read in a news report that Trump called the Chinese a bunch of motherf****** the other week at a conference in Las Vegas. He also, to my mind, is a sad sad case. But who knows, America might even elect him. Then who has the high horse.
it's scary to think about. for instances the germans who supported hitler, weren't dumb or ignorant. they were smart people. it's very scary to think about how even smart people can be manipulated into almost surrealistic situations.
be on your guard.
- Manipulated WITH fear.
Sowing seeds of fear, people are more bendable, willing to submit and follow especially the words of so called 'leaders'-
- During times of uncertainty including economic difficulties, people contract and they, like all of us focussed on survival, are more open to identifying the problems that are causing my problems and are not as open in the heart.
Focussing attention on others that are 'problems' allows politicians to detract the populace also, foccusing their energies and efforts on 'problem cells'. A focussed point of anger is easier to manage and can even make politicians smell like roses as people look to grasp their own ground (see example of Donald Trump simplistically saying that the Chinese are ripping Americans off and are a bunch of mother*******) Further, people are more open to seeing 'others' as issues. For example, the French President expelling the Romanians was regarded as a good popularity boost to Sarkozky at a time when economic woes are upon Europe.
- Brainwashed WITH propoganda and labels and manipulation.
Calling any people who disagree as terrorists, oppressors, using the media (which no longer seem to be a bipartisan or very intelligent source of information) to broadcast perceptions and images. Labelling others as enemies.
I saw a film once about the mafia in France. These were people whom kiiled others without a flinch (and even enjoyment in some cases) and yet the movie also showed heartwarming scenes of family and care with people they loved and loved them. But they did not care about other people at all and when they hurt others there was no recognition of any shared humanity at all. How sad, how regrettable. There was no irony of course. But the Director made a good point I thought.
I am not saying that it is not true that others want to hurt us in the 'West', but I am also saying please be careful, stay open if possible, and do not just listen blanket coverage to what we are told by our leaders. I am also not suggesting bleeding hearts, I am just saying...we can be realistic to the world and what is happening in it, and the people that make it up, but we can also be mindful of the intricacies and the subtleties that we might not see on the news or read about. The Buddha said all fear dying, all fear death. At the end of the day whether we know it or not, we are all the same person cycled amidst a thousand different conditions, and if you or I experienced what another did, could we really say we too would not be that as well. I don't know. Anyway.
Are you sure? Perhaps I might also take up a cause if I saw my brothers (and sisters) hurt, maimed, repressed, violated etc. I am not saying this type of thinking or the effects of it are right - not by any means - but are you sure that you can say he represents 'only anarchy'? Sounds convenient of course, and also naturally it is easier to kill or maim another who is only 'anarchy' but somehow, I doubt reality is as simple as we might like to make it. Or how we might divide it in our minds.
I also think that it is people who are into this Jihad or what we call extremism that have also painted us in the West so simplistically too. The evil head of the snake of Israel. Or a bunch of consumptio hungry hedonistic God violating zombies. Or ... etc. It also makes it easier for them to kill or hurt us. And to demonise, to make rational what they are devoting their life's work to.
It is all sad on both sides IMO but in my experience also there are no easy answers...or ways about this. Even Obama, if he did not do this, those that might ride over him, well the would be crazier I think. ..
For example, I read in a news report that Trump called the Chinese a bunch of motherf****** the other week at a conference in Las Vegas. He also, to my mind, is a sad sad case. But who knows, America might even elect him. Then who has the high horse.
Best wishes, and no offence.
Abu
I agree with you that, "reality is [not] as simple as we might like to make it", and that is part of the reason that in this setting where we write a few words it's sometimes difficult to convey a principle.
I guess my profession -- school principal -- was rather logical for me to choose because I tend to be a rule follower. Systems that have rules are preferable, in my view, because whether every rule is fair and reasonable, or not, at least everyone knows how the system works and whether or not there are ways to work around or modify those rules.
For example, we had a family in our school who was a challenge to work with. The mother and daughter (one of our students) you could work with. The son and the father...very difficult to work with. One day the son (age 13) brought a knife to school, a violation that had a system-wide mandatory suspension penalty. I suspended him. The father had the following options: a. appeal to the superintendent b. appeal to the school board c. institute a lawsuit
He chose option D -- punching the assistant principal in the face and threatening to murder the assistant principal's wife and children.
Do you feel that option D is acceptable? Because, in basic terms, that's the Osama Bin Laden option. If you don't do what I as an individual want, then I'll kill your women and children. Choices a, b, and c were within the realm of an ordered society. Choice d was I will personally declare war on anyone I want for any reason I want.
Now some people will say that rules are made to be broken or that rules are always bad or...well you get the point. Why would anyone that participates in this forum profess any sentiment even remotely close to that when they purport to follow a set of rules known as "The Noble Eightfold Path" or "the precepts"? If you profess to be a Buddhist, then you believe in a set of rules.
The same in society. Racism in America. I was young during the racial strife of the 1960s, but I well remember that period. Many believed the time required violence. Yet, who do we most respect today? The leaders of the race riots? No, Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached the opposite of anarchy.
Even the international community has a framework of law that attempt, admittedly sometimes feebly, to maintain law and order throughout the world under an umbrella of laws and rules. The U.N., the International Court at the Hague, and so forth. And when those systems don't work and nations go to war, we still have rules of war -- such as the Geneva Accords.
That is very different from the mindset of Osama Bin Laden -- I will kill and man, woman, child, or infant anywhere in the world at any time for any reason I want.
Now you can take Trump, or the Tea Party in general, or Sarah Palin...all of whom I think are unfit to lead this nation. But, they are working to do so within the legal framework of the country. That is a lot different than Timothy McVeigh declaring personal war against the men, women, children, and infants of America.
Legitimate governments do bad things. No question about it. But most of us here probably believe in the separation of church and state, and although this is not a Buddhist source, I think we do have to realize that there may be some differences between the principles an individual must live by, and the principles a governmen must live by -- “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. The most influential Buddhist leader in the world today lost his nation because he didn't realize that.
Although I disagree with how Israel was founded and dont believe they had the right to settle there, it is a mute point now. We have to find a way to have a peaceful co-existence there.
So how do you "deal" with someone who believes the only "right" way is to kick the Jews out? and who will kill innocents until this happens? Unreasonable people exists out there, and appeasement will not satisfy radicals.
Although I disagree with how Israel was founded and dont believe they had the right to settle there, it is a mute point now. We have to find a way to have a peaceful co-existence there.
So how do you "deal" with someone who believes the only "right" way is to kick the Jews out? and who will kill innocents until this happens? Unreasonable people exists out there, and appeasement will not satisfy radicals.
The Israeli issue...well, you know how some Buddhists believe that certain concepts are imponderable (in a command sense)...sort of like the Israel problem, except instead of being imponderable, it's unsolvable. Did the Israelis deserve to have a homeland? Yes, as much as anyone else. Did another nation deserve to have their land taken away from them. No. But for me, the bottom line is -- it was done 63 years ago. Maybe it's time to get over and move on, rather than continuing to ruin lives on all sides of the issue.
The "how to deal with that issue" seems to be another of those unsolvable issues. We can talk all we want about what I'll call "the Buddhist approach", but for those who think that will actually work, may I suggest they pack their bags and head for the Middle East and start building some sanghas from which to initiate their political actions and come back and let us know how that works out for them. Talk is cheap.
I think the idea that every nutcase needs to be heard and understood is misguided. Some of you seem to ignore the fact that something called Jihad exists and that there are people out there who would want to convert people by force. When someone is at that point there is no negotiating, its an inviable situation.
Same goes with extremist Christians in the USA who want to take over the government and school system. Both should be opposed.
The analogies with Gandhi and MLK are way out there. They were fighting for equality and freedom, while here its a fight against a man who wants to mass murder civilians in the name of Islam.
:clap: I'm choosing to be compassionate toward his victims.
These are all good points. There was no negotiating with Al Qaeda or Bin Laden, just as there was no hope of negotiating with the Nazis. But with the Middle East, a variety of preventive measures could have been taken, as was discussed toward the beginning of this thread.
Vinlyn, you're right, the victims need compassion. All parties to the situation need compassion.
I suspect the problem with Palestine and Israel could be solved. There are communities there that are mixed Palestinian and Israeli (or there used to be, I'm not sure if they're still there, after the Wall went up, and other measures were taken..I can't keep up) in which everyone got along with each other. This is do-able. But I think we're straying off-topic.
Do you live in the United States? Do you pay taxes? If you answered yes to each question: you aided in killing many brown people over in the Middle East the past 10 years.
Ten years? Try at least 58 years. There is blood on American hands from the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, and we haven't stopped since.
Ten years? Try at least 58 years. There is blood on American hands from the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, and we haven't stopped since.
This is one thing I mean by "preventive measures". That move really kicked off the "tensions" between the Middle East and the US, although the creation of the state of Israel didn't help... Anyway, back in the days of Mosaddegh, the US foreign policy was about "containment" of Communism. So all kinds of dictators were installed and democratically -elected leaders toppled to this end (Patrice Lumumba replaced by Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire/Congo, for example). Now suddenly, after the collapse of the USSR, we're into "democratization". Whether or not people want to be democratized. We're still forcing corrupt leaders on people, as in Iraq. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Do you live in the United States? Do you pay taxes? If you answered yes to each question: you aided in killing many brown people over in the Middle East the past 10 years.
Ten years? Try at least 58 years. There is blood on American hands from the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, and we haven't stopped since.
Let's not all forget amid all the America bashing; the French in Algeria, the Italians in Libya, the Belgians in the Congo, The British in Australia, Ireland, Iraq, India, South Africa, America, etc etc, the Dutch in South Africa,The Danish for their raping and pillaging in the dark ages, the Ottoman Empire. god couldn't we go on forever?.. and the Europeans for the genocide of the Native Americans (who we all just kinda conveniently blame on 'America' now, not European Settlers).
Point is, we all have blood on our hands. Stop using the US as a scapegoat. The problems we are facing now started long before the USA even existed! (I'm Irish/British in case you're wondering)
Do you live in the United States? Do you pay taxes? If you answered yes to each question: you aided in killing many brown people over in the Middle East the past 10 years.
Ten years? Try at least 58 years. There is blood on American hands from the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, and we haven't stopped since.
Let's not all forget amid all the America bashing; the French in Algeria, the Italians in Libya, the Belgians in the Congo, The British in Australia, Ireland, Iraq, India, South Africa, America, etc etc, the Dutch in South Africa,The Danish for their raping and pillaging in the dark ages, the Ottoman Empire. god couldn't we go on forever?.. and the Europeans for the genocide of the Native Americans (who we all just kinda conveniently blame on 'America' now, not European Settlers).
Point is, we all have blood on our hands. Stop using the US as a scapegoat. The problems we are facing now started long before the USA even existed! (I'm Irish/British in case you're wondering)
Undoubtedly true. But by dint of its huge size and population, the US is disproportionately represented in sticking its nose in places it doesn't belong historically...
Let's not all forget amid all the America bashing; the French in Algeria, the Italians in Libya, the Belgians in the Congo, The British in Australia, Ireland, Iraq, India, South Africa, America, etc etc, the Dutch in South Africa,The Danish for their raping and pillaging in the dark ages, the Ottoman Empire. god couldn't we go on forever?.. and the Europeans for the genocide of the Native Americans (who we all just kinda conveniently blame on 'America' now, not European Settlers).
Point is, we all have blood on our hands. Stop using the US as a scapegoat. The problems we are facing now started long before the USA even existed! (I'm Irish/British in case you're wondering)
But the topic is Bin Laden, not global imperialism, nor even American imperialism. The French in Algeria, etc. aren't relevant. We've been discussing conditions that gave rise to terrorism in the Middle East, specifically, that aimed at the US by Bin Laden. The US has a clear responsibility here. (So there's a reason the focus is on the US)
Buddhanet states, in regards to insects, but I think it applies here too, that " it may be necessary to kill but it is never wholly good.". Whether or not it was necessary is arguable, but regardless (in my eyes at least) it's still not wholly good, and as such, not a time for celebration. To be honest, watching some Americans take to the streets, chanting "USA! USA!" is not dissimilar to watching those they oppose. Nor does it do much for their international reputation. Just my two cents.
Let's not all forget amid all the America bashing; the French in Algeria, the Italians in Libya, the Belgians in the Congo, The British in Australia, Ireland, Iraq, India, South Africa, America, etc etc, the Dutch in South Africa,The Danish for their raping and pillaging in the dark ages, the Ottoman Empire. god couldn't we go on forever?.. and the Europeans for the genocide of the Native Americans (who we all just kinda conveniently blame on 'America' now, not European Settlers).
Point is, we all have blood on our hands. Stop using the US as a scapegoat. The problems we are facing now started long before the USA even existed! (I'm Irish/British in case you're wondering)
But the topic is Bin Laden, not global imperialism, nor even American imperialism. The French in Algeria, etc. aren't relevant. We've been discussing conditions that gave rise to terrorism in the Middle East, specifically, that aimed at the US by Bin Laden. The US has a clear responsibility here. (So there's a reason the focus is on the US)
Buddhanet states, in regards to insects, but I think it applies here too, that " it may be necessary to kill but it is never wholly good.". Whether or not it was necessary is arguable, but regardless (in my eyes at least) it's still not wholly good, and as such, not a time for celebration. To be honest, watching some Americans take to the streets, chanting "USA! USA!" is not dissimilar to watching those they oppose. Nor does it do much for their international reputation. Just my two cents.
I wish I had the Net skills: I'd love to upload a video of the New York 'celebrations' with the soundtrack and commentary of the Arab 'protests - and vice sersa. Would make interesting comparison.
Here are a couple of statements by HHDL on Bin Laden and fighting terrorism. The first was made after OBL's murder. The second was made during the Bush administration. He says the only way to fight terrorism is by prevention. news.yahoo.com/.../usattacksbinladendalailamatibet www.indianexpress.com/news/nonviolence-cannot-tackle-terrorism
I know it's kinda wrong to feel happy about this. I don't really like supporting the deaths of other people, but I was there on 9/11. I felt happy at first, but now a bit sadden I feel that I am happy for his death.
I am the same way. I don't care who they are or what they've done, I don't feel comfortable saying "Hooray, he's dead!" about any person. That just seems like a terrible thing to say.
Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to fight the russians...
This is what some of us have been saying all along; the US armed Bin Laden and his supporters, and helped him develop his terrorist network while he was on the US payroll. He's a monster of our own creation, and this is hardly the first time the US has propped up a leader, only to find itself forced to bring him to justice years later.
One final thought: imagine what the Bin Laden clan is going through right now. A brother is dead, no burial ceremony, the family was given no choice about burying their own, or viewing the body, or whatever. Were they even notified on the day OBL was killed? We have no idea. They'll never be able to enter the US again, unless they change their last name. What's it like to have your brother, nephew, uncle subject to a manhunt by (supposedly) the most powerful nation on Earth? How do you live with that? Will they have to avoid Europe as well? To what extent has this entire mess affected their daily lives?
Can anyone here spare some compassion for the Bin Ladens?
One final thought: imagine what the Bin Laden clan is going through right now. A brother is dead, no burial ceremony, the family was given no choice about burying their own, or viewing the body, or whatever. Were they even notified on the day OBL was killed? We have no idea. They'll never be able to enter the US again, unless they change their last name. What's it like to have your brother, nephew, uncle subject to a manhunt by (supposedly) the most powerful nation on Earth? How do you live with that? Will they have to avoid Europe as well? To what extent has this entire mess affected their daily lives?
Can anyone here spare some compassion for the Bin Ladens?
As I understand it the bin Laden clan disowned Osama many years ago (years before the 9/11 attacks even). And they enter into and do business in the US just fine. They tend to use "Binladin" in their business dealings, though I don't think that has much to do with Osama, but rather more of a catering to the international business community who generally are more use to westernized names.
Even his family didnt care for him. You are having compassion for people who arnt even mourning. I bet most of them are happy someone in their family wont be around to keep killing thousands of people.
I am sure some members of Al-Qaeda are mourning his death...
Argh, mobile complications. Somebody ought to watch the video entitled 'US can't accept it created Bin Laden & Al Qaeda' on the Tube and tell us what you think. Maybe even post it here for me if you wanna be really nice? Xox
Are you sure? Perhaps I might also take up a cause if I saw my brothers (and sisters) hurt, maimed, repressed, violated etc. I am not saying this type of thinking or the effects of it are right - not by any means - but are you sure that you can say he represents 'only anarchy'? Sounds convenient of course, and also naturally it is easier to kill or maim another who is only 'anarchy' but somehow, I doubt reality is as simple as we might like to make it. Or how we might divide it in our minds.
I also think that it is people who are into this Jihad or what we call extremism that have also painted us in the West so simplistically too. The evil head of the snake of Israel. Or a bunch of consumptio hungry hedonistic God violating zombies. Or ... etc. It also makes it easier for them to kill or hurt us. And to demonise, to make rational what they are devoting their life's work to.
It is all sad on both sides IMO but in my experience also there are no easy answers...or ways about this. Even Obama, if he did not do this, those that might ride over him, well the would be crazier I think. ..
For example, I read in a news report that Trump called the Chinese a bunch of motherf****** the other week at a conference in Las Vegas. He also, to my mind, is a sad sad case. But who knows, America might even elect him. Then who has the high horse.
Best wishes, and no offence.
Abu
I agree with you that, "reality is [not] as simple as we might like to make it", and that is part of the reason that in this setting where we write a few words it's sometimes difficult to convey a principle.
I guess my profession -- school principal -- was rather logical for me to choose because I tend to be a rule follower. Systems that have rules are preferable, in my view, because whether every rule is fair and reasonable, or not, at least everyone knows how the system works and whether or not there are ways to work around or modify those rules.
For example, we had a family in our school who was a challenge to work with. The mother and daughter (one of our students) you could work with. The son and the father...very difficult to work with. One day the son (age 13) brought a knife to school, a violation that had a system-wide mandatory suspension penalty. I suspended him. The father had the following options: a. appeal to the superintendent b. appeal to the school board c. institute a lawsuit
He chose option D -- punching the assistant principal in the face and threatening to murder the assistant principal's wife and children.
Do you feel that option D is acceptable? Because, in basic terms, that's the Osama Bin Laden option. If you don't do what I as an individual want, then I'll kill your women and children. Choices a, b, and c were within the realm of an ordered society. Choice d was I will personally declare war on anyone I want for any reason I want.
Now some people will say that rules are made to be broken or that rules are always bad or...well you get the point. Why would anyone that participates in this forum profess any sentiment even remotely close to that when they purport to follow a set of rules known as "The Noble Eightfold Path" or "the precepts"? If you profess to be a Buddhist, then you believe in a set of rules.
The same in society. Racism in America. I was young during the racial strife of the 1960s, but I well remember that period. Many believed the time required violence. Yet, who do we most respect today? The leaders of the race riots? No, Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached the opposite of anarchy.
Even the international community has a framework of law that attempt, admittedly sometimes feebly, to maintain law and order throughout the world under an umbrella of laws and rules. The U.N., the International Court at the Hague, and so forth. And when those systems don't work and nations go to war, we still have rules of war -- such as the Geneva Accords.
That is very different from the mindset of Osama Bin Laden -- I will kill and man, woman, child, or infant anywhere in the world at any time for any reason I want.
Now you can take Trump, or the Tea Party in general, or Sarah Palin...all of whom I think are unfit to lead this nation. But, they are working to do so within the legal framework of the country. That is a lot different than Timothy McVeigh declaring personal war against the men, women, children, and infants of America.
Legitimate governments do bad things. No question about it. But most of us here probably believe in the separation of church and state, and although this is not a Buddhist source, I think we do have to realize that there may be some differences between the principles an individual must live by, and the principles a governmen must live by -- “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. The most influential Buddhist leader in the world today lost his nation because he didn't realize that.
I don't think there are easy answers as I said. There are a thousand perspectives at play and I can see a part of all of them. I think it is important to practice though, and I mean that to myself also.
'The most influential Buddhist leader in the world today lost his nation because he didn't realize that.'
How did he become 'The most influential Buddhist leader in the world today'? China invaded Tibet & tibetan monks fled to India and their teachings spread to the west. Firstly, he could well be The most influential Buddhist leader in the west, not the rest of the world. Secondly, he lost his country because a giant neighbor invaded.
First, "America" did not celebrate. Neither did the people of this nation throw a huge block party or spend the day discussing this "world shattering event", like the news generators filling air time would have you believe. In my personal experience, the talk around the water cooler was something like,
"Did you hear we killed bin Laden? Apparently he was hiding in plain sight in some big mansion in Pakistan."
"Yeah, and did you see the price of gas was over four dollars on the way to work? And with that tiny little pay raise our company passed out this year, I don't know how I'm going to afford that if it keeps up, and let me tell you..."
In other words, most people are intelligent enough to know what is and isn't important to them. Emotions are what they are, and after this one man has been raised to the status of a super genius Supervillian plotting to destroy the Free World, then it's natural to see some cheering like it's the end of a movie when the villian gets his deserved end. Most people also understand that not much has really changed.
I admit there are some pretty ignorant americans. I have gotten a lot of people say they were dissapointed it was Osama and not Obama. Another made the joke that there was a new mixed drink: two shots and a splash of salt water.
You should be very afraid of the american Palinites and the like.
I admit there are some pretty ignorant americans. I have gotten a lot of people say they were dissapointed it was Osama and not Obama.
OMG! That's REALLY beyond the pale! eeewwwwwww Who are these people you hang out with? You're "tough crowd" club, whatever it was? Time for a new crowd, Jeffrey.
Comments
:clap:
I'm choosing to be compassionate toward his victims.
Edit: "or Buddha"
Individuals matter in history, as do root causes.
What happens at 13:10 is particularly significant.
Exactly my thoughts.
Understanding takes time and observation, something media outlets no longer offer us. They offer us instead the blanket statements and effects espoused by the politicians and corporate leaders of our day and age. It is unfortunate, but true, I think. Therefore, it might help for each of us to also look deeper into the issues, including understanding the reasons and historeies and also to look at how dangerous it is for us to just listen blanket, or to accept easy (unfortunate) words like terrorism and terrorists.
_/\_
By the way I had often noticed how after the 9/11 attackse George W Bush was working in the name of God (he thought this, it was reported, and they said he was a religious man whom oft prayed) and so was, at the time, Osama Bin Laden. Both fighting for God, for people, for justice, for revenge? Each the other an enemy, an evil terrorist?
And yet I think also people in comfortable environments with food on the table and loving households, safe households, who do not feel jolted and prodded, why would they do that. I don't think they would do it willingly. I think the causes are larger at hand to this 'enemy' issue, and I hope we will all have enough light shining to see it through to a good resolution one day.
_/\_
be on your guard.
I also think that it is people who are into this Jihad or what we call extremism that have also painted us in the West so simplistically too. The evil head of the snake of Israel. Or a bunch of consumptio hungry hedonistic God violating zombies. Or ... etc. It also makes it easier for them to kill or hurt us. And to demonise, to make rational what they are devoting their life's work to.
It is all sad on both sides IMO but in my experience also there are no easy answers...or ways about this. Even Obama, if he did not do this, those that might ride over him, well the would be crazier I think. ..
For example, I read in a news report that Trump called the Chinese a bunch of motherf****** the other week at a conference in Las Vegas. He also, to my mind, is a sad sad case. But who knows, America might even elect him. Then who has the high horse.
Best wishes, and no offence.
Abu
Sowing seeds of fear, people are more bendable, willing to submit and follow especially the words of so called 'leaders'-
- During times of uncertainty including economic difficulties, people contract and they, like all of us focussed on survival, are more open to identifying the problems that are causing my problems and are not as open in the heart.
Focussing attention on others that are 'problems' allows politicians to detract the populace also, foccusing their energies and efforts on 'problem cells'. A focussed point of anger is easier to manage and can even make politicians smell like roses as people look to grasp their own ground (see example of Donald Trump simplistically saying that the Chinese are ripping Americans off and are a bunch of mother*******) Further, people are more open to seeing 'others' as issues. For example, the French President expelling the Romanians was regarded as a good popularity boost to Sarkozky at a time when economic woes are upon Europe.
- Brainwashed WITH propoganda and labels and manipulation.
Calling any people who disagree as terrorists, oppressors, using the media (which no longer seem to be a bipartisan or very intelligent source of information) to broadcast perceptions and images. Labelling others as enemies.
I saw a film once about the mafia in France. These were people whom kiiled others without a flinch (and even enjoyment in some cases) and yet the movie also showed heartwarming scenes of family and care with people they loved and loved them. But they did not care about other people at all and when they hurt others there was no recognition of any shared humanity at all. How sad, how regrettable. There was no irony of course. But the Director made a good point I thought.
I am not saying that it is not true that others want to hurt us in the 'West', but I am also saying please be careful, stay open if possible, and do not just listen blanket coverage to what we are told by our leaders. I am also not suggesting bleeding hearts, I am just saying...we can be realistic to the world and what is happening in it, and the people that make it up, but we can also be mindful of the intricacies and the subtleties that we might not see on the news or read about. The Buddha said all fear dying, all fear death. At the end of the day whether we know it or not, we are all the same person cycled amidst a thousand different conditions, and if you or I experienced what another did, could we really say we too would not be that as well. I don't know. Anyway.
I guess my profession -- school principal -- was rather logical for me to choose because I tend to be a rule follower. Systems that have rules are preferable, in my view, because whether every rule is fair and reasonable, or not, at least everyone knows how the system works and whether or not there are ways to work around or modify those rules.
For example, we had a family in our school who was a challenge to work with. The mother and daughter (one of our students) you could work with. The son and the father...very difficult to work with. One day the son (age 13) brought a knife to school, a violation that had a system-wide mandatory suspension penalty. I suspended him. The father had the following options:
a. appeal to the superintendent
b. appeal to the school board
c. institute a lawsuit
He chose option D -- punching the assistant principal in the face and threatening to murder the assistant principal's wife and children.
Do you feel that option D is acceptable? Because, in basic terms, that's the Osama Bin Laden option. If you don't do what I as an individual want, then I'll kill your women and children. Choices a, b, and c were within the realm of an ordered society. Choice d was I will personally declare war on anyone I want for any reason I want.
Now some people will say that rules are made to be broken or that rules are always bad or...well you get the point. Why would anyone that participates in this forum profess any sentiment even remotely close to that when they purport to follow a set of rules known as "The Noble Eightfold Path" or "the precepts"? If you profess to be a Buddhist, then you believe in a set of rules.
The same in society. Racism in America. I was young during the racial strife of the 1960s, but I well remember that period. Many believed the time required violence. Yet, who do we most respect today? The leaders of the race riots? No, Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached the opposite of anarchy.
Even the international community has a framework of law that attempt, admittedly sometimes feebly, to maintain law and order throughout the world under an umbrella of laws and rules. The U.N., the International Court at the Hague, and so forth. And when those systems don't work and nations go to war, we still have rules of war -- such as the Geneva Accords.
That is very different from the mindset of Osama Bin Laden -- I will kill and man, woman, child, or infant anywhere in the world at any time for any reason I want.
Now you can take Trump, or the Tea Party in general, or Sarah Palin...all of whom I think are unfit to lead this nation. But, they are working to do so within the legal framework of the country. That is a lot different than Timothy McVeigh declaring personal war against the men, women, children, and infants of America.
Legitimate governments do bad things. No question about it. But most of us here probably believe in the separation of church and state, and although this is not a Buddhist source, I think we do have to realize that there may be some differences between the principles an individual must live by, and the principles a governmen must live by -- “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. The most influential Buddhist leader in the world today lost his nation because he didn't realize that.
Although I disagree with how Israel was founded and dont believe they had the right to settle there, it is a mute point now. We have to find a way to have a peaceful co-existence there.
So how do you "deal" with someone who believes the only "right" way is to kick the Jews out? and who will kill innocents until this happens? Unreasonable people exists out there, and appeasement will not satisfy radicals.
The "how to deal with that issue" seems to be another of those unsolvable issues. We can talk all we want about what I'll call "the Buddhist approach", but for those who think that will actually work, may I suggest they pack their bags and head for the Middle East and start building some sanghas from which to initiate their political actions and come back and let us know how that works out for them. Talk is cheap.
http://buddhism.about.com/b/2011/05/02/on-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden.htm
http://www.susanpiver.com/wordpress/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-is-dead-one-buddhists-response/
http://dangerousharvests.blogspot.com/2011/05/osama-bin-ladens-death-buddhist.html
Jason
Vinlyn, you're right, the victims need compassion. All parties to the situation need compassion.
I suspect the problem with Palestine and Israel could be solved. There are communities there that are mixed Palestinian and Israeli (or there used to be, I'm not sure if they're still there, after the Wall went up, and other measures were taken..I can't keep up) in which everyone got along with each other. This is do-able. But I think we're straying off-topic.
Point is, we all have blood on our hands. Stop using the US as a scapegoat. The problems we are facing now started long before the USA even existed! (I'm Irish/British in case you're wondering)
news.yahoo.com/.../usattacksbinladendalailamatibet
www.indianexpress.com/news/nonviolence-cannot-tackle-terrorism
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110504/ts_yblog_theenvoy/al-qaeda-member-surrenders-saudi-arabia-says
Can anyone here spare some compassion for the Bin Ladens?
Even his family didnt care for him. You are having compassion for people who arnt even mourning. I bet most of them are happy someone in their family wont be around to keep killing thousands of people.
I am sure some members of Al-Qaeda are mourning his death...
:thumbsup:
I don't think there are easy answers as I said. There are a thousand perspectives at play and I can see a part of all of them. I think it is important to practice though, and I mean that to myself also.
May all be well.
Abu
How did he become 'The most influential Buddhist leader in the world today'?
China invaded Tibet & tibetan monks fled to India and their
teachings spread to the west.
Firstly, he could well be The most influential Buddhist leader
in the west, not the rest of the world.
Secondly, he lost his country because a giant neighbor
invaded.
Just highlights how two faced politicians are to their own people.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal
"Did you hear we killed bin Laden? Apparently he was hiding in plain sight in some big mansion in Pakistan."
"Yeah, and did you see the price of gas was over four dollars on the way to work? And with that tiny little pay raise our company passed out this year, I don't know how I'm going to afford that if it keeps up, and let me tell you..."
In other words, most people are intelligent enough to know what is and isn't important to them. Emotions are what they are, and after this one man has been raised to the status of a super genius Supervillian plotting to destroy the Free World, then it's natural to see some cheering like it's the end of a movie when the villian gets his deserved end. Most people also understand that not much has really changed.
:om:
You should be very afraid of the american Palinites and the like.