Kulapavana Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 In the heart of every man there are two wolves fighting: love and hate. The one you feed more wins... - Lakota proverb - <LAKOTA proverb> It is proper to respond violently to violence, but it must be done in the spirit of love, compassion, and justice. That is what Maharaja Pariksit did. Hate just breeds more hate, and injustice breeds more injustice. American and Israeli 'war on terrorism' just breeds more terrorism because it is based on hate and injustice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Kulapavana, in all sincerity, what do you suppose would happen if "the Americans and Israelis" stop fighting? Maharaj Pariksit did not respond violently. He threatened so, but at the behest of Dharma he did not do so. In fact, he offered Kali a place in his kingdom! Would you be concerned that if the Israelis opened their borders, dropped their defenses and allowed Hamas to operate freely, that exactly what the Israelis had been concerned of will happen? If there is great indication that it would happen wouldn't you accept that it would? When you have a blanket "fatwa" to cut the throats of the non-believers, Jews, and sinners who haven't taken Allah to be their form of faith issued by accepted authority figures, is that not something to be concerned about. How does one go about reconciling with these authorities? It seems, the only way, according to these authorities, is to abandon your independent religious and idealogical pursuits and follow the path of the Koran, the Prophet Muhammed, and Allah's Will. This is the war of today. Religion and Atheism is the war of tommorow. Other non-Islamists have done what Islamic fatwa today suggests (gradually becoming more radical), in the past. "Those who forget the past, are doomed to repeat it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffster Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 "American and Israeli 'war on terrorism' just breeds more terrorism because it is based on hate and injustice." It is quite easy to make lofty moral pronouncements when the rockets fired from Gaza are not falling on your house. Then Hamas, which has publicly sworn as its goal the destruction of Israel, acts surprised when the Israelis finally get fed up and retaliate, as any country would finally do in self-defense. Try saying this when the terrorists are at your door to pick you up for trial and execution for practicing an infidel religion. In the meantime, please chant extra rounds, because it looks like our lives will be cut short because apparently no one on this forum is willing to stand up to terrorism. jeffster/AMd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 In the meantime, please chant extra rounds, because it looks like our lives will be cut short because apparently no one on this forum is willing to stand up to terrorism. jeffster/AMd Quite true; and that applies to the real world.There is a dogged reluctance to study the basis for terrorism leave alone standing up against it. people who say terrorism is because of poverty are ignorant or unwilling to accept the fact that a sizeable percentage of terrorists come from well to do families. The thought that terrorism has it's roots in religion is an impossible and frightening thing for majority of people; so they try to brush these concerns under the carpet with the standard refrain that terrorists have no religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 It is quite easy to make lofty moral pronouncements when the rockets fired from Gaza are not falling on your house. I bet if you lived in Gaza you would see Israel's reaction to these rockets as a genocide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Kulapavana, in all sincerity, what do you suppose would happen if "the Americans and Israelis" stop fighting? There would be peace. The strong must show the weak their willingness to compromise. Isreal is exploiting the war to expand their territory and to kill their political opponents. And US is their dog of war. In the face of grave injustice and abuse of power, people turn to radical militant ideologies. http://www.theneocoins.com/ These people have more innocent blood on their hands than any Muslim terrorist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 There would be peace. The strong must show the weak their willingness to compromise. May be you should read about "Battle of tours" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours. Also you may read about it at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023059.php quote" Prior to this, the Islamic conquerors, drunk with power and plunder, had, for one century been subjugating all peoples and territories standing in their western march—from Arabia to Morocco (al-Maghreb, the “furthest west”). In 711, the Muslims made their fateful crossing of the straits of Gibraltar, landing for the first time on European ground. Upon touching terra firma, the leader of the Muslims, Tariq bin Zayid, ordered all the boats used for the crossing burned, asserting “We have not come here to return. Either we conquer and establish ourselves here, or we perish.” Islam was there to stay. This famous Tariq anecdote—often reminisced by modern day jihadists—highlights the jihadist nature of the Umayyad caliphate (661-750), the superpower of its day. As most historians have acknowledged, the Umayyad caliphate was the “Jihadi-State” par excellence. Its very existence was closely tied to its conquests; its legitimacy as “viceroy” of Allah based on its jihadi expansion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffster Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 "I bet if you lived in Gaza you would see Israel's reaction to these rockets as a genocide." 1.) I am not a gambling man, as my gurudev has recommended that I follow 4 principles, one of which is not to gamble. 2.) Are you suggesting that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ? I am not saying that the Israelis are completely right. No one is completely right in this conflict because they all have material motivations. But I can discriminate between the shades of evil. If someone openly and publicly avows to destroy your nation and push all your people into the sea, would you stand idly by and let them do so ? 3.) Let us also examine which side puts on explosive belts, goes to the land of the other and blows up the belts in the middle of crowded civilian areas. Only the Muslims do that, not the Israelis. Do the Indians invade Pakistani cities, blow up commuter trains, and open fire on civilians in hotels ? So there is a gradation of evil, and I hope you awake to it. jeffster/AMd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 The strong must protect the weak. No strong person of character will compromise by allowing weaker kin to suffer. So we have a stagnancy in a world of "courage". The "Strong Defending the Weak" is the herald of every nation or creed on this planet. We have no clear world leader, in a world which is increasingly getting smaller. The issues we have now are that each individual nation's strength tries to protect its own weak or secure the future strength of its kin by lobbing bombs, rockets, bullets, and stones at those of other creeds in a statement of "protection" and "security". Who or Where can we look to for a global view of protection? The UN sits idly as Hamas fires rockets into residential neighborhoods. The UN sits idly as Israel launches its onslaught, resulting in the deaths of 1000's of men, women, and children. Somehow this is eerily reminiscent of the day that fateful game of dice was played and then the even more fateful "Draupadi Cheer Haran". Good and Bad persons looking on in the face of tragedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 The question is which current international power has the sanatan dharma to understand the multifaceted view of Bhagavan (including atheism)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 - La illaha ilAllahu, Wahidda(n), Ahada(n), Samada(n), lam yatakhidh sahiba(n). Wa la walada, wa la yak(n)ul-lahu kufuwan Ahad (There is no God except Allah, the One and Only, the Eternal, Who has not taken a partner nor a son. And there is none like unto Him) How is this seen in the eyes of the Vedantist (Vaishnava, Shaivite, Shakti, Advaitins alike)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffster Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 This is referring to brahman. Brahman, due to its impersonal nature, cannot have partners or sons. Only the Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, the manifestation of divinity in complete fullness, can have partners and sons. Or Lord Shiva, also. jeffster/AMd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 However, it does not take into consideration, the axiom from the Bhagavata: vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jnanam advayam brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted January 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 - La illaha ilAllahu, Wahidda(n), Ahada(n), Samada(n), lam yatakhidh sahiba(n). Wa la walada, wa la yak(n)ul-lahu kufuwan Ahad (There is no God except Allah, the One and Only, the Eternal, Who has not taken a partner nor a son. And there is none like unto Him) How is this seen in the eyes of the Vedantist (Vaishnava, Shaivite, Shakti, Advaitins alike)? "The no son" thing refers to jesus christ.The verses you posted are from Qur'an, Chapter 112: Here are some other verses from quran. Qur'an 5:17 "Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, 'The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.'" Qur'an 5:72 "They are surely infidels who blaspheme and say: 'God is Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.' But the Messiah only said: 'O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.'" Qur'an 5:72 "...Lo! Whoever joins other gods with Allah or says He has a partner, Allah has forbidden Paradise, and the Hell Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help."<table width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr class="row1" valign="top"><td class="source" nowrap="nowrap"> </td><td align="left"> </td> </tr> <tr class="row2" valign="top"> <td class="source" nowrap="nowrap"> </td><td> </td></tr></tbody></table> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffster Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Yes, of course, Islam is not getting the full picture, which includes not only brahman, but Paramatma and Bhagavan, as well. Theirs is at best a partial conception of Divinity. jeffster/AMd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 "The no son" thing refers to jesus christ.The verses you posted are from Qur'an, Chapter 112: I figured as much. Even if it didn't mean it at the time of conception, it certainly means it in contemporary light. The partner bit would obviously be popularly interpreted to be Shaktiman and Shakti or any other type of "polytheistic" version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted January 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I figured as much. Even if it didn't mean it at the time of conception, it certainly means it in contemporary light. The partner bit would obviously be popularly interpreted to be Shaktiman and Shakti or any other type of "polytheistic" version. The partner aspect refers to worshipping other god(s) besides Allah.The premuhammad arabians were worshipping other smaller gods besides Allah.As per quran christians are as much polytheists as hindus. The intention was explicit and there was no ambiguity there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 ... people who say terrorism is because of poverty are ignorant or unwilling to accept the fact that a sizeable percentage of terrorists come from well to do families.The thought that terrorism has it's roots in religion is an impossible and frightening thing for majority of people; so they try to brush these concerns under the carpet with the standard refrain that terrorists have no religion. The very name Islam comes from the Arabic word 'salama' which means peace. Islam is a religion which is based upon achieving peace through submission to the will of Allah. Then how is it that so many acts done by its adherents are contrary to peace? The answer is simple. Such actions have no place with it. They are not Islamic and should not be thought of as Islamic. Poverty and oppression breeds terrorists. People become so desperate that they resort to performing the suicidal acts suggested to them in the name of Allah by a small group of power hungry fanatics and demagogs that adhere only to their own agenda and clearly misuse and misinterpret Islamic scripture to mobilize the poor and oppressed for their own political and economical purposes. I wouldn’t even be too surprised if Western economic interests appear to be behind some supposedly Islamist terrorist acts. This may explain why some terrorists are well educated and seem to live a normal life in a Western country. And let’s not forget that living in a Western country is no guarantee for mental health. Nevertheless, the root cause of most terrorism seems to be large scale poverty and oppression. Just look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffster Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/asia/25swat.html?_r=partner=MOREOVERNEWS&ei=5040 jeffster/AMd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/asia/25swat.html?_r=partner=MOREOVERNEWS&ei=5040 jeffster/AMd Although the Taliban allowed terrorist training camps in their territory and provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization, I’m not sure if you should call them terrorists. It’s more like a radical Islamist movement that violently tries to implement their specific brand of radicalism and Islamic law. Before 9/11, Pakistan even recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government. And the Taliban still has a lot of public support in Pakistan. Remarkably, at present there exists no internationally agreed definition of terrorism (!) My own definition would be something like: Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of organized violent action whereby the immediate human victims are generally chosen randomly from a target population or are representative or symbolic targets within the target population. Terrorism serves to enforce demands, attention, intimidation, coercion, or propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffster Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 "I'm not sure if you should call them terrorists. It's more like a radical Islamist movement that violently tries to implement their specific brand of radicalism and Islamic law." Perhaps if the word "violently" weren't there, I might agree with you to some extent. But when coercion and violence reign, I can only call them terrorists. The population is terrorized into submission. That valley the article discusses is not some frontier part of Pakistan. It is a valley of 1.3 million people, only about 100 miles from the major Pakistani cities. It should be apparent that the Taliban are gaining strength and spreading through use of their violent methodology. If this continues unabated, they WILL eventually control Pakistan and they will then have access to nukes. Who will they use the nukes against ? India. That would be the start of WW3. I don't think that this is anything to be taken lightly. jeffster/AMd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncientMariner Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 This one seems to have some relevance here. Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.3.21 tvam asya lokasya vibho rirakṣiṣur gṛhe 'vatīrṇo 'si mamākhileśvara rājanya-saḿjñāsura-koṭi-yūthapair nirvyūhyamānā nihaniṣyase camūḥ SYNONYMS tvam — Your Lordship; asya — of this world; lokasya — especially of this martya-loka, the planet earth; vibho — O Supreme; rirakṣiṣuḥ — desiring protection (from the disturbance of the asuras); gṛhe — in this house; avatīrṇaḥ asi — have now appeared; mama — my; akhila-īśvara — although You are the proprietor of the entire creation; rājanya-saḿjña-asura-koṭi-yūtha-paiḥ — with millions of demons and their followers in the roles of politicians and kings; nirvyūhyamānāḥ — which are moving here and there all over the world; nihaniṣyase — will kill; camūḥ — the armies, paraphernalia, soldiers and retinues. TRANSLATION O my Lord, proprietor of all creation, You have now appeared in my house, desiring to protect this world. I am sure that You will kill all the armies that are moving all over the world under the leadership of politicians who are dressed as kṣatriya rulers but who are factually demons. They must be killed by You for the protection of the innocent public. PURPORT Kṛṣṇa appears in this world for two purposes, paritrāṇāya sādhūnāḿ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām: [Bg. 4.8] to protect the innocent, religious devotees of the Lord and to annihilate all the uneducated, uncultured asuras, who unnecessarily bark like dogs and fight among themselves for political power. It is said, kali-kāle nāma-rūpe kṛṣṇa avatāra. The Hare Kṛṣṇa movement is also an incarnation of Kṛṣṇa in the form of the holy name (nāma-rūpe). Every one of us who is actually afraid of the asuric rulers and politicians must welcome this incarnation of Kṛṣṇa: Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. Then we will surely be protected from the harassment of asuric rulers. At the present moment these rulers are so powerful that by hook or by crook they capture the highest posts in government and harass countless numbers of people on the plea of national security or some emergency. Then again, one asura defeats another asura, but the public continues to suffer. Therefore the entire world is in a precarious condition, and the only hope is this Hare Kṛṣṇa movement. Lord Nṛsiḿhadeva appeared when Prahlāda was excessively harassed by his asuric father. Because of such asuric fathers — that is, the ruling politicians — it is very difficult to press forward the Hare Kṛṣṇa movement, but because Kṛṣṇa has now appeared in His holy name through this movement, we can hope that these asuric fathers will be annihilated and the kingdom of God established all over the world. The entire world is now full of many asuras in the guise of politicians, gurus, sādhus, yogīs and incarnations, and they are misleading the general public away from Kṛṣṇa consciousness, which can offer true benefit to human society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffster Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Yes, we must continue to chant regardless of what happens. Our body will meet its end one way or the other... Ultimately Krishna is the only shelter. From another point of view, is there no action that can be taken to check this terrorism ? Or is it that few are willing to take the issue head on ? jeffster/AMd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Let us also examine which side puts on explosive belts, goes to the land of the other and blows up the belts in the middle of crowded civilian areas. Only the Muslims do that, not the Israelis. Israelis do the same using rockets fired from drones and artillery shells. They routinely kill 20 or more civilians for every 'terrorist' they target. You don't seem to have a problem with that - a curious sense of justice. Israelis block even the humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. Their policies amount to genocide: wholsale slaughter of entire populations. I am not defending the Muslim terrorists and their tactics. But the Israeli terrorists are just as bad, if not worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Kulapavana, your statement Their policies amount to genocide: wholsale slaughter of entire populations. just doesn't have the capacity to be substantiated. Israel has not done this, nor has it attempted to do it. Again and again, it is the culturing of Muslim hate and fanatacism which justifies attacking Jews. Why is it that you get blanket statements like, "We'll kill Jewish children anywhere."? Genocide is most likely something that will start happening to the Jews, while apologists will stand by saying things like, "They really had no right to the land", or "They really ought not to have defended themselves with the use of lethal force." Do we find in the Bible or Torah statements like, Sura (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." and Sura (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." and Abu Dawud (41:4815) - "The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man follows the religion of his friend; so each one should consider whom he makes his friend." and Ishaq 262 - "Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a Qur'an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has already shown itself and what they conceal is worse" http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/009-friends-with-christians-jews.htm Oddly enough, these statements are so specific that none of these statements can be supported without an endeavor at metaphors and interpretations. Of course, we should chant the Hare Krsna Maha Mantra. Death is upon each and every one of us, and there is no easy way to accept it. Some unfortunately never had the chance to learn to accept it while it was happening to them. Many persons get upset regarding things like the bombing of Dresden, or Tokyo. And, rightfully so. I get upset about these too. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies are heart breaking. So too is this strike on Gaza. To take a life "before its time" is a tragedy. However, there is an old adage, "Fight fire with fire", which is continuously put into practical use. No matter how much water you pour on some fires, they just don't go out. So you have to surround the fire with the pre-combusted remains of anything flammable so the fire puts itself out due to lack of fuel. There were so many persons who did not want to attend WWII simply because they felt it was the Jews and Pollocks who deserved what was coming to them and didn't figure on their need to get involved. They were the enlightened ones who knew it was only a war of propaganda. Yet, through all the propaganda, somewhere between 4 and 5 million Jews were killed, about 5.3 million Pols (nearly half Polish Jews) (nearly half of all these in concentration camps, half again in extermination camps!!!), aroung 7 million Russians, and somewhere around 320,000 Chinese non-combatants were killed. The Axis side suffered losses in the ranges of : 2,000,000 Japanese, 800,000 German and many more. While the non-combatant casualty list is severely lopsided, it is still a varitable list of true tragedy. Shall we let it happen again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.