|
|
Post by waywardwolf on Oct 9, 2007 6:01:25 GMT -5
^ I'm not really sure these are supporting your claim. I am glad to hear the monks are taking action. But saving a man from a mob, taking security officials hostage and then releasing them? Is that violent to you? What should they do? Be beaten in silence?
|
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 9, 2007 6:11:15 GMT -5
^ I'm not really sure these are supporting your claim. I am glad to hear the monks are taking action. But saving a man from a mob, taking security officials hostage and then releasing them? Is that violent to you? What should they do? Be beaten in silence? If government officials came to apologize, and the monks respond by taking them hostage and burning down their cars, they sound pretty violent to me. Even in Western countries, people who shout in the street about wanting lightning to strike soldiers is guilty of inciting violence. |
|
|
|
Post by waywardwolf on Oct 9, 2007 6:21:20 GMT -5
Put yourself in their shoes, man. If someone shot your friends and then came to apologize, would you serve them tea? It's a violent situation brought about by the military junta, and despite all this, the monks continue to show some manner of reserve. If Bush tried this sort of thing in America, there would be all out revolution, wouldn't there? I doubt people would stop in the streets to pray infront of soldiers.
|
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 10, 2007 6:16:37 GMT -5
^ I'm not really sure these are supporting your claim. I am glad to hear the monks are taking action. But saving a man from a mob, taking security officials hostage and then releasing them? Is that violent to you? What should they do? Be beaten in silence? If government officials came to apologize, and the monks respond by taking them hostage and burning down their cars, they sound pretty violent to me. Even in Western countries, people who shout in the street about wanting lightning to strike soldiers is guilty of inciting violence. Goodness you really make me laugh. In Western countries, if you shout in the street wanting lightning to strike soldiers, people would probably laugh at you (like you're a lunatic) or you're a big fan of Jerry Falwell, but that is not considered inciting violence. Of course, one has to be careful too where one does the shouting. If it's in the middle of a Los Angeles freeway, chances are high that such person might get run over by a truck, but that is the price not of his/her speech, but of his/her stupidity. Lol. In your own twisted world, you seem to want to portray Buddhist monks as the antagonists in this drama with the Burmese military junta. You're heading down that slippery slope of losing your own credibility and grasp of reality. |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 10, 2007 7:54:51 GMT -5
not much point in talking about what will happen after the junta..... as for now, it's strictly hypothetical.... having misgivings about blind faith in elections solving socio/economic/political problems is not the same thing as supporting or accepting nasty regimes..... whatever the elections fundamentalists imply.... and since there is zero chance of western countries invading or otherwise influencing Burma (even tho the current crisis was provoked by IMF/World Bank policies, but i digress).....there's not much point in debating whether it's better to be fed, treated medically but not be free or "free" to starve.....as it's not applicable to Burma.... here, petition...700,000+ strong - help bump it up to 1m! www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/peace |
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 10, 2007 7:58:14 GMT -5
Goodness you really make me laugh. In Western countries, if you shout in the street wanting lightning to strike soldiers, people would probably laugh at you (like you're a lunatic) or you're a big fan of Jerry Falwell, but that is not considered inciting violence. I've seen street preachers in the USA get arrested after they shouted about how cops will burn in hell, etc. I have no reason to think that monks will establish a tolerant, secular democracy any more than if Jerry Falwell took over the government. If we want to contemplate an absurd scenario where Bush will make America just as backward and repressive as Burma, then it is easy to imagine that Jerry Falwell will also posture with his "nonviolent protests", making a show of saving people from mobs they had created in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 10, 2007 8:31:33 GMT -5
not much point in talking about what will happen after the junta..... as for now, it's strictly hypothetical.... having misgivings about blind faith in elections solving socio/economic/political problems is not the same thing as supporting or accepting nasty regimes..... whatever the elections fundamentalists imply.... and since there is zero chance of western countries invading or otherwise influencing Burma (even tho the current crisis was provoked by IMF/World Bank policies, but i digress).....there's not much point in debating whether it's better to be fed, treated medically but not be free or "free" to starve.....as it's not applicable to Burma.... here, petition...700,000+ strong - help bump it up to 1m! www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/peace Ironically, you were also part of that debate, as you may recall. |
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 10, 2007 8:35:38 GMT -5
Goodness you really make me laugh. In Western countries, if you shout in the street wanting lightning to strike soldiers, people would probably laugh at you (like you're a lunatic) or you're a big fan of Jerry Falwell, but that is not considered inciting violence. I've seen street preachers in the USA get arrested after they shouted about how cops will burn in hell, etc. I have no reason to think that monks will establish a tolerant, secular democracy any more than if Jerry Falwell took over the government. If we want to contemplate an absurd scenario where Bush will make America just as backward and repressive as Burma, then it is easy to imagine that Jerry Falwell will also posture with his "nonviolent protests", making a show of saving people from mobs they had created in the first place. No, I've never seen any street preacher get arrested for saying those things and we sure have lots of them in Chicago. As far as your second paragraph, I thought Buddhism was a religion of peace and tolerance. If that's not the case, by all means let me know. |
|
|
|
Post by waywardwolf on Oct 10, 2007 10:06:37 GMT -5
If we want to contemplate an absurd scenario where Bush will make America just as backward and repressive as Burma It was I, not juancarlos that made this absurd statement, however the point of it was that we would not conduct ourselves in nearly as peaceful a manner as the monks. When attacked, we would attack back. They have shown a reserve unfathomable to most Americans, yet you've insinuated that they are violent. So which statement is more absurd? |
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 10, 2007 10:57:02 GMT -5
It was I, not juancarlos that made this absurd statement, however the point of it was that we would not conduct ourselves in nearly as peaceful a manner as the monks. When attacked, we would attack back. They have shown a reserve unfathomable to most Americans, yet you've insinuated that they are violent. So which statement is more absurd? I'm going by Western media reports that say the monks are violent. If anything, Western media is so biased in favor of the monks that I have a feeling they are only reporting a fraction of all the bad behavior. When our Presidential election results were disputed in 2000, Americans did not riot in the streets. In many other countries, including Western democracies, such situations often do lead to mass riots. We're too confident in our own institutions to stoop to that kind of behavior. What are we supposed to do, drive to downtown in our SUV's to smash things? |
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Oct 10, 2007 18:25:49 GMT -5
not much point in talking about what will happen after the junta..... as for now, it's strictly hypothetical.... having misgivings about blind faith in elections solving socio/economic/political problems is not the same thing as supporting or accepting nasty regimes..... whatever the elections fundamentalists imply.... and since there is zero chance of western countries invading or otherwise influencing Burma (even tho the current crisis was provoked by IMF/World Bank policies, but i digress).....there's not much point in debating whether it's better to be fed, treated medically but not be free or "free" to starve.....as it's not applicable to Burma.... here, petition...700,000+ strong - help bump it up to 1m! www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_burma/peace Ironically, you were also part of that debate, as you may recall. it's only ironic if you assume Burma will become another Philippines.... the debate was more about your assumptions and generalisations and people pointing out there are more variables that come into play....variables that you do not wish to discuss presumably because it would weaken your argument that it's better to have elections than not.... anyways.... peace |
|
|
|
Post by waywardwolf on Oct 10, 2007 19:19:06 GMT -5
I'm going by Western media reports that say the monks are violent. If anything, Western media is so biased in favor of the monks that I have a feeling they are only reporting a fraction of all the bad behavior. When our Presidential election results were disputed in 2000, Americans did not riot in the streets. In many other countries, including Western democracies, such situations often do lead to mass riots. We're too confident in our own institutions to stoop to that kind of behavior. What are we supposed to do, drive to downtown in our SUV's to smash things? Once again, defending yourself from a military assult, after praying peacefully infront of them doesn't sound all too violent to me. Consider their predicament, how would you have handled it? I'd say that after the 2000 American presidential election, a key difference is that Bush did not lock Gore in prison and use military might to secure his reign after Gore had supposedly won. |
|
|
|
Post by haplotype on Oct 10, 2007 20:17:48 GMT -5
Once again, defending yourself from a military assult, after praying peacefully infront of them doesn't sound all too violent to me. Consider their predicament, how would you have handled it? The Burmese government handled the protests as any other country would have -- first, riot police were deployed, and when the crowd was still unruly, the army was deployed. In 1992 after the Rodney King riots, the US army was deployed to LA, and rioters did not dare to fight the army. No, Gore did a fine job of making a fool out of himself afterwards -- becoming fat and growing a beard like some Michael Moore wannabe, making sensationalist films about how the Earth is going to blow up, refusing to run for President again. Maybe the junta should release Suu Kyi and let her do the same. How popular is Suu Kyi going to be with the mobs anyway, as she grows older and uglier? Burmese are not known for treating women well.  |
|
|
|
Post by waywardwolf on Oct 10, 2007 23:52:31 GMT -5
You must consider yourself quite the humanitarian.
I was in L.A. for those riots as a little kid, I guarantee the rioters weren't stopping to pray peacefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Oct 11, 2007 0:05:02 GMT -5
Ironically, you were also part of that debate, as you may recall. it's only ironic if you assume Burma will become another Philippines.... the debate was more about your assumptions and generalisations and people pointing out there are more variables that come into play....variables that you do not wish to discuss presumably because it would weaken your argument that it's better to have elections than not.... anyways.... peace When did I say I want to stop discussing the issues? You were the one who wrote: "there's not much point in debating whether it's better to be fed, treated medically but not be free or "free" to starve....." The only point I was making at the start of this thread was that it was time for the Burmese military junta to step down and give way to Suu Kyi's elected government. I did not start the debate on the merits of democracy vis-a-vis other forms of government, a topic we debated extensively on some other thread already. Nevertheless, thanx for posting that link for the petition. The Burmese people need all the support they can get at the moment. |
|
