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.
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
Look up the Kellogg-Briand act. We have outlawed war before with the League of Nations established as the adjudicating body to regulate competition. That was in the 1920s. And Japan, Germany, and the Soviet Union declared war on neighbors anyway and either left the club or were kicked out.
And besides, ISIS views non-Islamic governments as illegitimate anyway so they'd simply ignore it
That is why there would need to be a police to enforce the law now wouldn't it? By force.
There is no one solution to this genocide. There are simply multiple choices that are all varying degrees of awful. Either let genocide happen unchecked or bomb the offenders and attempts to evacuate victims. Both choices will lead to massive death tolls. The debate is which is less awful.
Yes there is but you just will not see it because the solutions are to big to grasp.
EDIT: What I am trying to say is that. Thinking in the box will not solve this. That was my point you made. Didn't mean to point any finger.
How is your solution different than the current state of affairs? The UN, largely useless, wags its finger at rogue regimes who break the rules. The United States, the only nation capable of large scale force projection, sometimes or sometimes doesn't bomb or invade the offending nation.
The US is the police force you speak of. By force.
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
How is your solution different than the current state of affairs? The UN, largely useless, wags its finger at rogue regimes who break the rules. The United States, the only nation capable of large scale force projection, sometimes or sometimes doesn't bomb or invade the offending nation.
The US is the police force you speak of. By force.
No it is not. Because
it is biased and runs its own errands. Obviously such a force would need to be a unbiased force
it has no international court that upholds a outlawing of war at its back.
EDIT: Such a court would need the proper legislation to uphold as well.
Why do you bring the UN into this?
Dude I am just pointing out a possible solution that would work.
And my point is that people does not want to see it. Like you demonstrate.
They would rather see it as too problematic/too big to take seriously. Which is my point...
An "unbiased force" with huge international power.
No such animal.
I really suggest you do some reading about the issues that were involved in the League Of Nations, the United Nations, the non-aligned movement involving people like Sukarno, etc.
No nation is going to give up its sovereignty. And any nation that did, would soon cease to exist.
@vinlyn said:
An "unbiased force" with huge international power.
All power cuts two ways. There is no exception.
So who polices the police?
But this problem is handled pretty good in the western world? No?
Yes it is a problem if one lets the police have the ultimate power instead of the people.
But that is not the case (I hope) in the democratic world.
No such animal.
Maybe not yet. Hmm. The FBI works for what state would you say?
I really suggest you do some reading about the issues that were involved in the League Of Nations, the United Nations, the non-aligned movement involving people like Sukarno, etc.
Will do.
No nation is going to give up its sovereignty. And any nation that did, would soon cease to exist.
There is another way that would solve this. A true united nations. With no military.
The truth is that nation after nation has been giving up their sovereignty. Either through conquest by another or by federation. The US is the prime example of that.
I think this solution is the more viable of the two I presented. And is the one that ultimately will be implemented.
As in 1939, we have again lost the chance of peace and I fear that we may be forced onto a war footing again. As a life-long pacifist and a member of the post-Holocaust generation, I have had to recognise that I have no adequate answer when confronted by a greater evil than war - and genocide is just such a situation.
Our nations, in the West, have created the conditions for the disasters we are seeing unfold and it breaks my heart to know that we will be drawn deeper and deeper into this conflict, whether we will or no, and that we shall find that young men and women from within our own communities will take sides more and more violently. If we do nothing, we shall be adjudged guilty by history and if we intervene we shall surely be judged guilty too. This is the result of a century of interference in the Middle East and, in particular, the calling of a new 'crusade' in 2001.
We need not invoke the law of karma to understand the historical consequence of our imperialist actions. We may have to accept that we, ourselves, are to blame for the horrors through which we will live over the next few years.
"Ten devishes can sleep beneath one blanket.
Two kings cannot reign in one kingdom" - Saadi of Shiraz
Does your dharma centre offer free courses/tuition for military personnel? How many 'advanced' retreats are in war torn, conflict locations? What part of the Boddhisattva vow involves pontificating in a comfy chair? [oops guilty] Until the 'impractical' long term methods become the norm, the norm will be as is . . .
Following developments it now appears that many in harms way have found safe or safer haven. President Obama has stated there will be no rescue plans or further airdrops. Where is the joy that many escaped slaughter?
@Victorious said:
There is another way that would solve this. A true united nations. With no military.
The truth is that nation after nation has been giving up their sovereignty. Either through conquest by another or by federation. The US is the prime example of that.
I think this solution is the more viable of the two I presented. And is the one that ultimately will be implemented.
But probably not tonight.
G'nite.
/Victor
In other words, laws with no means of enforcement. This was exactly what plagued the League of Nations. There were all sorts of wonderful sounding intentions and laws about outlawing war.
But how did this august body handle the Japanese conquest of Manchuria and China? It could do nothing but denounce.
You wish to outlaw war, which is wonderful. And look, countries that used to hate each other and fight to the death no longer do so. Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Britain, the US. Because totalitarianism gave way to liberal democracies. By force. But someone who believes that he is commanded by the creator of the universe to sever children's heads for the attainment of heaven is simply not a reasonable person interested in your international laws.
We need not invoke the law of karma to understand the historical consequence of our imperialist actions. We may have to accept that we, ourselves, are to blame for the horrors through which we will live over the next few years.
Of course, there is no imperialism in the Middle East.
And that is an adequate excuse? We do not allow it from our children ("He did it too"). We cannot exculpate ourselves so easily. Nor does it excuse our double-think.
@Simonthepilgrim said:
And that is an adequate excuse? We do not allow it from our children ("He did it too"). We cannot exculpate ourselves so easily. Nor does it excuse our double-think.
I strongly object to your post implying that 100% of the problem is on the part of the West.
Then you clearly don't understand why the League Of Nations failed.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
We need to not get prickly with each other and snip at one another's posts. That defeats the very essence of this thread.
We put forward ideas and theories which Superpowers may be able to implement as measures to keep world peace a reality - and we get all shirty with each other here?
When discussing the global spectre of unrest, war and conflict, even Buddhists can't get along?
@vinlyn said:
I agree with your suggestions for the Muslim world.
I heartily disagree with your comment to "spread Buddhism, spread Buddhism, spread Buddhism"...at least as written, sounds like you're suggesting evangelizing, which to me is a very un-Buddhist concept. Perhaps I'm reading something into your post that's not there. Could you clarify?
I wrote: "What can we do as Buddhists? Work on ourselves, and spread Buddhism with our example.
And basically, spread Buddhism, spread Buddhism, spread Buddhism...
Let's outnumber hatred with a real example of peace and loving-kindness."
I underline "WITH OUR EXAMPLE."
There are enough Jehovah Witnesses out there "evangelizing."
We do not need Buddha Witnesses.
Leading by example has taken us far enough.
I don't agree that it's my job to do your homework. You can easily read many articles free and online about the cause of the failure of the League Of Nations, which frankly aren't totally different than the reasons that the United Nations doesn't accomplish significant peace settlements. And it would take pages of explanation and examples to outline the problems. But to reduce it to a few phrases:
few, if any nations are going to be willing to give up their sovereign rights
there can be no perception of non-bias in such a governing force due to the extreme differences in culture across the globe
there is a never-ending stream of non-governmental groups and strong men that feel they are above any national or international law body
the League's failure is best exemplified by the rise of Adolph Hitler at the very time that the League was in its prime
when nations are on the wrong side of the League, they will withdraw from the body
neutrality often takes the role of indecision
pacifism (which has its place) always ultimately fails when major players refuse to take a role that is pacifist.
And you are welcome to say I'm wrong. And then my response will be that I can show you thousands of examples of groups of nations being unable to work together, and you won't be able to show me any examples of groups of "united nations" being able to work together to any degree that is both lasting and of real significance in terms of world peace.
Most of what I have read in this thread is pie-in-the-sky "wouldn't it be wonderful if" ideas. Which is fine if you simply want to wax poetic. But it doesn't do a thing for the people of Iraq and Syria and Gaza and.............
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The League of Nations despite sanctions against Italy was unable to prevent the invasion of Ethiopia by Marshall Badoglio. Sanctions imposed in 1935 conquest completed May 5, 1936.
Most of what I have read in this thread is pie-in-the-sky "wouldn't it be wonderful if" ideas. Which is fine if you simply want to wax poetic. But it doesn't do a thing for the people of Iraq and Syria and Gaza and.............
Neither does all your idle speculation.
You've been given the Buddhist response to the situation but you reject it because it doesn't suit you. Why don't you try accepting the fact that not all problems can be fixed by some glib pontificating on an internet forum?
@poptart said:
You've been given the Buddhist response to the situation but you reject it because it doesn't suit you. Why don't you try accepting the fact that not all problems can be fixed by some glib pontificating on an internet forum?
I accept that completely...about all pontificating.
@vinlyn said:
I don't agree that it's my job to do your homework.
Dear vinlyn. I dish out two totally imaginary solutions to a problem and you explain why the Uniting Nations will not work which is I agree as imaginary.
What can I say?
Victor: I can imagine they will.
vinlyn: No they wont.
Victor: yes they will
vinlyn: no they wont!
Victor: They will if I say so.
vinlyn: ...
Victor: what?
vinlyn: ...
Victor: What?
vinlyn: lean closer Victor so I do not have to shout.
Victor: vinlyn.
vinlyn: yes?
Victor: I see the Keisaku you are hefting behind your back.
vinlyn: There is no Keisaku. It is just your mind fluttering.
Just lean closer like a good boy...
@Victorious Milk spewed out my nose, when I read this. And I don't drink milk.
This might be those special powers I read about in another thread... the uses of such a power. Don't worry, if you can't think of any...your mind will provide.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I was deeply saddened by the video of James Foley's execution yesterday. Utter barbarism.
A blow to civilization not to mention freedom of the press, where newsmen who put themselves in danger while reporting risk grisly murder.
It seems a though the president spoke out more strongly against this than previous atrocities. I wonder if this will galvanize the Allies to seek to destroy ISIS.
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
It seems a though the president spoke out more strongly against this than previous atrocities. I wonder if this will galvanize the Allies to seek to destroy ISIS.
Containment will probably be more effective.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Destroying ISIS is as good as giving it twice the troops and fire power instead .
@Frozen_Paratrooper said:
I was deeply saddened by the video of James Foley's execution yesterday. Utter barbarism.
A blow to civilization not to mention freedom of the press, where newsmen who put themselves in danger while reporting risk grisly murder.
It seems a though the president spoke out more strongly against this than previous atrocities. I wonder if this will galvanize the Allies to seek to destroy ISIS.
Certainly it is barbaric behavior...quite literally. And, it is a good example of why I believe those who suggest pacifism in dealing with ISIS (ISIL) are dealing in folly.
I also believe that it is worth remembering that Foley was where he was totally voluntarily, free-lance at that, in a situation that he already knew was perilous since he had been kidnapped by Islamic militants previously.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
appallingly, it seems 'the executioner' - was British.
Those who would establish a modern day Caliphate are still taking small steps. Eventually they will develop a better skill set. This brings forth the worst kind of human conflict. That which has religious underpinnings. al Islam speaks of the far enemy and the near enemy.
We call them evil. They call us infidels. Seems like quite a stage for a slaughter that will in my opinion eventually involve much of the globes people.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
@grackle; The presence of a new (developing) Caliphate is frightening, to me, but maybe I'm just one of those villagers with pitchforks. There can be no real "Caliph", just a figurehead behind which the movers and shakers . . . er, move and shake. No matter how I slice it I just get chilled.
Firstly..Do not watch the video. Everyone who does, becomes another willing part of the ISIS propaganda machine.
If a Buddhist organization acted as ISIS does, and I as a Buddhist was not willing to stand up against it, then it would be understandable for the world to say that I was actually supporting it.
The amount of silence from the Muslim world about ISIS scares me more than ISIS does.
There are many Muslims around the world who are vocal about their opposition to ISIS and violence in general. Google can provide many examples. Here's one. Conversely, many Buddhists are just as silent about the violence against Muslims in Burma and Sri Lanka. Let's not make this thread about hating on Muslims, but how to respond to violence wherever it arises.
ISIS was mentioned as one example of an unconscionable Evil. In discusing this, the Muslim world and there responsibility for that organisations expansion naturally comes up.
To see that as having a "hate on" for Muslims is an over reaction.
This thread is about examples of unconscionable Evil and ****how to respond to it.
Perhaps a more interesting example of unconscionable evil could have been the 5 permanent members of the security council representing the 5 largest arms suppliers on the planet. Then we could more easily explain the relative lack of criticism by one Muslim group against another by examining how we do the same for our own..
I just call 'em like I see 'em. I may be wrong about the direction some of the comments in this thread are taking; and if that's the case, I'm happy. Less moderating for me to do. I just don't want this thread to devolve like some previous ones centred around Islam have. In addition, I also wanted to point out that this isn't just as issue with Muslims despite ISIS being the focus. Even us 'peaceful' Buddhists are just as capable of unconscionable evil. Greed, hatred, and delusion have no social or religious boundaries.
5
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
It's important to be able to have conversations ABOUT 'unconscionable evil' without them devolving into 'hate ons'. It's got to be a hard call for moderators when to intercede or end it. If it gets too heavily moderated nothing risky-but-helpfully-illuminating will dare come forward, lest the thread be shut down. Lack of moderation has it's obvious limitations too.
I am curious, frustrated, bemused, outraged and confused about what's going on with Islam, but my education is limited by how much and what I am allowed to discuss. I actually mean this in general, not just on this forum, it's a touchy subject everywhere.
Islam is temporarily wearing the mask of 'evil' lately, for a variety of reasons whether or not they are true. We have to be able to discuss evil, whoever is wearing the mask seeings that we all wear it/have worn it.
It's sad that someone was murdered, of course. But I urge people not to get caught up in media hysteria which is undoubtedly designed to manipulate you into a hateful mindset. How many people were murdered in the rest of the world yesterday, for other less politically useful reasons? Do you hear the media screaming about them? Evil is everywhere, my friends. Don't help create it in your own heart.
One thing that has struck me about this thread is that a number of people are talking about "evil", but I was under the impression that most people on this forum didn't believe in "evil".
Comments
That is why there would need to be a police to enforce the law now wouldn't it? By force.
Yes there is but you just will not see it because the solutions are to big to grasp.
EDIT: What I am trying to say is that. Thinking in the box will not solve this. That was my point you made. Didn't mean to point any finger.
Peace.
And what happens in places where the police have the true control?
How is that relevant?
I must have missed the solution too big to see in the comments.
Care to offer an alternative to mine that would end the genocide with minimal loss of life?
How is your solution different than the current state of affairs? The UN, largely useless, wags its finger at rogue regimes who break the rules. The United States, the only nation capable of large scale force projection, sometimes or sometimes doesn't bomb or invade the offending nation.
The US is the police force you speak of. By force.
No it is not. Because
EDIT: Such a court would need the proper legislation to uphold as well.
Why do you bring the UN into this?
Dude I am just pointing out a possible solution that would work.
And my point is that people does not want to see it. Like you demonstrate.
They would rather see it as too problematic/too big to take seriously. Which is my point...
See?
/Victor
Sadly yes.
I just did.
An "unbiased force" with huge international power.
No such animal.
I really suggest you do some reading about the issues that were involved in the League Of Nations, the United Nations, the non-aligned movement involving people like Sukarno, etc.
No nation is going to give up its sovereignty. And any nation that did, would soon cease to exist.
All power cuts two ways. There is no exception.
So who polices the police?
But this problem is handled pretty good in the western world? No?
Yes it is a problem if one lets the police have the ultimate power instead of the people.
But that is not the case (I hope) in the democratic world.
Maybe not yet. Hmm. The FBI works for what state would you say?
Will do.
Not such a bad idea. Is it?
/Victor
There is another way that would solve this. A true united nations. With no military.
The truth is that nation after nation has been giving up their sovereignty. Either through conquest by another or by federation. The US is the prime example of that.
I think this solution is the more viable of the two I presented. And is the one that ultimately will be implemented.
But probably not tonight.
G'nite.
/Victor
We sowed the wind and are reaping the whirlwind.
As in 1939, we have again lost the chance of peace and I fear that we may be forced onto a war footing again. As a life-long pacifist and a member of the post-Holocaust generation, I have had to recognise that I have no adequate answer when confronted by a greater evil than war - and genocide is just such a situation.
Our nations, in the West, have created the conditions for the disasters we are seeing unfold and it breaks my heart to know that we will be drawn deeper and deeper into this conflict, whether we will or no, and that we shall find that young men and women from within our own communities will take sides more and more violently. If we do nothing, we shall be adjudged guilty by history and if we intervene we shall surely be judged guilty too. This is the result of a century of interference in the Middle East and, in particular, the calling of a new 'crusade' in 2001.
We need not invoke the law of karma to understand the historical consequence of our imperialist actions. We may have to accept that we, ourselves, are to blame for the horrors through which we will live over the next few years.
"Ten devishes can sleep beneath one blanket.
Two kings cannot reign in one kingdom" - Saadi of Shiraz
Does your dharma centre offer free courses/tuition for military personnel? How many 'advanced' retreats are in war torn, conflict locations? What part of the Boddhisattva vow involves pontificating in a comfy chair? [oops guilty] Until the 'impractical' long term methods become the norm, the norm will be as is . . .
Following developments it now appears that many in harms way have found safe or safer haven. President Obama has stated there will be no rescue plans or further airdrops. Where is the joy that many escaped slaughter?
In other words, laws with no means of enforcement. This was exactly what plagued the League of Nations. There were all sorts of wonderful sounding intentions and laws about outlawing war.
But how did this august body handle the Japanese conquest of Manchuria and China? It could do nothing but denounce.
You wish to outlaw war, which is wonderful. And look, countries that used to hate each other and fight to the death no longer do so. Germany, Japan, Italy, France, Britain, the US. Because totalitarianism gave way to liberal democracies. By force. But someone who believes that he is commanded by the creator of the universe to sever children's heads for the attainment of heaven is simply not a reasonable person interested in your international laws.
The military does not uphold the law. The police does. They are a civilian force.
Why on earth would I recommend a nation without police. Think about it.
Now truly good night.
Of course, there is no imperialism in the Middle East.
And that is an adequate excuse? We do not allow it from our children ("He did it too"). We cannot exculpate ourselves so easily. Nor does it excuse our double-think.
I strongly object to your post implying that 100% of the problem is on the part of the West.
I read up on the League of Nations and fail to see its relevance to what I suggested. Any of it.
Then you clearly don't understand why the League Of Nations failed.
We need to not get prickly with each other and snip at one another's posts. That defeats the very essence of this thread.
We put forward ideas and theories which Superpowers may be able to implement as measures to keep world peace a reality - and we get all shirty with each other here?
When discussing the global spectre of unrest, war and conflict, even Buddhists can't get along?
See the irony?
I heartily disagree with your comment to "spread Buddhism, spread Buddhism, spread Buddhism"...at least as written, sounds like you're suggesting evangelizing, which to me is a very un-Buddhist concept. Perhaps I'm reading something into your post that's not there. Could you clarify?
I wrote: "What can we do as Buddhists? Work on ourselves, and spread Buddhism with our example.
And basically, spread Buddhism, spread Buddhism, spread Buddhism...
Let's outnumber hatred with a real example of peace and loving-kindness."
I underline "WITH OUR EXAMPLE."
There are enough Jehovah Witnesses out there "evangelizing."
We do not need Buddha Witnesses.
Leading by example has taken us far enough.
We do not need Buddha Witnesses.
Leading by example has taken us far enough.
Put that way, I can agree with the sentiment.
Explain please?
No offense but that is such a cop-out of a reply. I'd like to hear your explanation too.
I don't agree that it's my job to do your homework. You can easily read many articles free and online about the cause of the failure of the League Of Nations, which frankly aren't totally different than the reasons that the United Nations doesn't accomplish significant peace settlements. And it would take pages of explanation and examples to outline the problems. But to reduce it to a few phrases:
And you are welcome to say I'm wrong. And then my response will be that I can show you thousands of examples of groups of nations being unable to work together, and you won't be able to show me any examples of groups of "united nations" being able to work together to any degree that is both lasting and of real significance in terms of world peace.
Most of what I have read in this thread is pie-in-the-sky "wouldn't it be wonderful if" ideas. Which is fine if you simply want to wax poetic. But it doesn't do a thing for the people of Iraq and Syria and Gaza and.............
...Southall, or Brixton.
The League of Nations despite sanctions against Italy was unable to prevent the invasion of Ethiopia by Marshall Badoglio. Sanctions imposed in 1935 conquest completed May 5, 1936.
>
Neither does all your idle speculation.
You've been given the Buddhist response to the situation but you reject it because it doesn't suit you. Why don't you try accepting the fact that not all problems can be fixed by some glib pontificating on an internet forum?
I accept that completely...about all pontificating.
Dear vinlyn. I dish out two totally imaginary solutions to a problem and you explain why the Uniting Nations will not work which is I agree as imaginary.
What can I say?
Victor: I can imagine they will.
vinlyn: No they wont.
Victor: yes they will
vinlyn: no they wont!
Victor: They will if I say so.
vinlyn: ...
Victor: what?
vinlyn: ...
Victor: What?
vinlyn: lean closer Victor so I do not have to shout.
Victor: vinlyn.
vinlyn: yes?
Victor: I see the Keisaku you are hefting behind your back.
vinlyn: There is no Keisaku. It is just your mind fluttering.
Just lean closer like a good boy...
lobster: Yez. Wez gotz a plan! :clap: .
federica: Guys...
Sorry for making fun in this thread. I am as sick of this kind of sht as the next person. But its never gonna end so what you gonna do?
@Victorious Milk spewed out my nose, when I read this. And I don't drink milk.
This might be those special powers I read about in another thread... the uses of such a power. Don't worry, if you can't think of any...your mind will provide.
Ok, my turn.
"Guys...."
I was deeply saddened by the video of James Foley's execution yesterday. Utter barbarism.
A blow to civilization not to mention freedom of the press, where newsmen who put themselves in danger while reporting risk grisly murder.
It seems a though the president spoke out more strongly against this than previous atrocities. I wonder if this will galvanize the Allies to seek to destroy ISIS.
Containment will probably be more effective.
Destroying ISIS is as good as giving it twice the troops and fire power instead
.
Certainly it is barbaric behavior...quite literally. And, it is a good example of why I believe those who suggest pacifism in dealing with ISIS (ISIL) are dealing in folly.
I also believe that it is worth remembering that Foley was where he was totally voluntarily, free-lance at that, in a situation that he already knew was perilous since he had been kidnapped by Islamic militants previously.
appallingly, it seems 'the executioner' - was British.
Wow...I didn't realize that!
Those who would establish a modern day Caliphate are still taking small steps. Eventually they will develop a better skill set. This brings forth the worst kind of human conflict. That which has religious underpinnings. al Islam speaks of the far enemy and the near enemy.
We call them evil. They call us infidels. Seems like quite a stage for a slaughter that will in my opinion eventually involve much of the globes people.
@grackle; The presence of a new (developing) Caliphate is frightening, to me, but maybe I'm just one of those villagers with pitchforks. There can be no real "Caliph", just a figurehead behind which the movers and shakers . . . er, move and shake. No matter how I slice it I just get chilled.
2 stray thoughts
Firstly..Do not watch the video. Everyone who does, becomes another willing part of the ISIS propaganda machine.
If a Buddhist organization acted as ISIS does, and I as a Buddhist was not willing to stand up against it, then it would be understandable for the world to say that I was actually supporting it.
The amount of silence from the Muslim world about ISIS scares me more than ISIS does.
There are many Muslims around the world who are vocal about their opposition to ISIS and violence in general. Google can provide many examples. Here's one. Conversely, many Buddhists are just as silent about the violence against Muslims in Burma and Sri Lanka. Let's not make this thread about hating on Muslims, but how to respond to violence wherever it arises.
I don't know Jason?
ISIS was mentioned as one example of an unconscionable Evil. In discusing this, the Muslim world and there responsibility for that organisations expansion naturally comes up.
To see that as having a "hate on" for Muslims is an over reaction.
This thread is about examples of unconscionable Evil and ****how to respond to it.
Perhaps a more interesting example of unconscionable evil could have been the 5 permanent members of the security council representing the 5 largest arms suppliers on the planet. Then we could more easily explain the relative lack of criticism by one Muslim group against another by examining how we do the same for our own..
I just call 'em like I see 'em. I may be wrong about the direction some of the comments in this thread are taking; and if that's the case, I'm happy. Less moderating for me to do. I just don't want this thread to devolve like some previous ones centred around Islam have. In addition, I also wanted to point out that this isn't just as issue with Muslims despite ISIS being the focus. Even us 'peaceful' Buddhists are just as capable of unconscionable evil. Greed, hatred, and delusion have no social or religious boundaries.
It's important to be able to have conversations ABOUT 'unconscionable evil' without them devolving into 'hate ons'. It's got to be a hard call for moderators when to intercede or end it. If it gets too heavily moderated nothing risky-but-helpfully-illuminating will dare come forward, lest the thread be shut down. Lack of moderation has it's obvious limitations too.
I am curious, frustrated, bemused, outraged and confused about what's going on with Islam, but my education is limited by how much and what I am allowed to discuss. I actually mean this in general, not just on this forum, it's a touchy subject everywhere.
Islam is temporarily wearing the mask of 'evil' lately, for a variety of reasons whether or not they are true. We have to be able to discuss evil, whoever is wearing the mask seeings that we all wear it/have worn it.
It's sad that someone was murdered, of course. But I urge people not to get caught up in media hysteria which is undoubtedly designed to manipulate you into a hateful mindset. How many people were murdered in the rest of the world yesterday, for other less politically useful reasons? Do you hear the media screaming about them? Evil is everywhere, my friends. Don't help create it in your own heart.
And the 7/7 London bombers were "home-grown". I missed one of the tube bombs by 24 hours by the way.
One thing that has struck me about this thread is that a number of people are talking about "evil", but I was under the impression that most people on this forum didn't believe in "evil".
Just wondering.