Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

Buddhist Monks have a rich history of heavy drinking and barroom brawling. They have been known to get stinking drunk en masse and go out and attack whoever is handy. There must be a bunch of muslims hanging out near some of their favorite watering holes.

 

Don't forget atheist communists.

 

Are you serious? It's called SURVIVAL! Let me ask you, what have the koranimals done that has driven the non violent to violence? Whenever there is a problem, it's ALWAYS the koranimals fault.

 

I provided the sources so I don't really care what you buy or not.

 

that seems stupid your treating people like some kind of always evil fantasy critter

 

Then this Islam is NOT a religion:

“Lands developed and tilled by human hands and those which come under Muslim control consequent on jihad are considered to be the property of the Muslim society and none can purchase or sell even one metre thereof.“
http://www.al-islam.org/philosophyofislam/17.htm

It goes to understanding the “why” of the sign held by the Buddhist in English, “The World is not only for Muslims.”

The Thai kick-boxer taught by Monks taught me never to attack others only to use it for defense, and he stressed that repeatedly.

You see we have to establish what their “personal thoughts and beliefs” are with regard to what their definition of “religion” is before we can determine whether this means anything to Buddhists or anyone:

“[60.8] Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.
[60.9] Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.”

If Muslims can move onto land or convert others in the land, because they cannot be stopped, and then Muslim society owns that land forever, that could mean something to the possibility of Buddhist enlightenment, especially if there are separatist movements in Burma; religion (depending upon the definition) could become the perfect method of conquering forever, it becomes the difference between self-determination of peoples and “keep up prayer” is not compulsion in religion because once land is tilled it becomes the perfect handle that cannot break off, as the right way of enlightenment is clearly distinct from error.

Simple platitudes of “Holding a certain religion is hardly a good reason to attack someone,” do not work if the definition of “religion” held is aggression in and of itself. I am saying that under certain circumstances “holding thoughts and beliefs” can be an action or threat to self-determination of peoples.

Since “ownership forever of all land touched by” a people (“Lands developed and tilled by human hands and those which come under Muslim control consequent on jihad are considered to be the property of the Muslim society and none can purchase or sell even one metre thereof. &#8220 is not religion, we are back to my first post on page two where I asked this unanswered question:

“Is taking land by whatever reason and then keeping it pure a form of aggression?”

 

Typically the Christian leaves those internal things to judgment day, but to an atheist there is none so we must argue you are wrong.

Thoughts and beliefs are actions.

If someone votes for a law or allows by mission of inaction a law, because of their thoughts and beliefs that is an action derived from thoughts and beliefs. {See first law of robotics by Asimov.}

It is my contention that the act of Muslims allowing laws in Islamic countries or making them such as to establish religion, and not speaking out against it, and of Burma establishing religion similarly, for the purpose of maintaining a religion (“keep up prayer&#8221, are both acts of aggression against humanity.

If the thoughts and beliefs of those are that they can when obtaining critical mass in a democracy or any form of government establish religion for all States for the purpose of keeping the land purely for their religion (“keep up prayer&#8221 or even passively allow its establishment without even verbal challenge, I am claiming they are all aggressors.

Every Muslim that by action or mission of inaction (pacifism or submission) does not support freedom of speech, even when such speech is offending to their false prophet (“keep up prayer&#8221 or their established religion, they are aggressors against humanity as a whole.

I am claiming that because humans are not inert pacifism is an action; the act of pacifism (submissive) is an action and without freedom of speech applied against wrong beliefs is an act of aggression. That is why Peter did not shut his mouth when ordered to do so, to have complied would have been an act of aggression against enlightenment.

 

Absolutely- communists insisted on a religious like devotion to communism- hardcore communists were filled with the same kind of religious fervor as so many religious fanatics.

 

It's not a platitude. It's my opinion.

Your meaning is wrong though..Aggression is in no way the definition of religion. You can be a Satan worshiper, and still not sacrifice any virgins in your back yard. Aggression is defined as attacks against others. Your beliefs NEVER attack others until you act on them.

Of course taking land is aggression. I didn't offer my opinion that taking land was okay. People don't take land because their religion told them to. They take land because they want the land. They might use religion as a justification for it.

People have been fighting over territory since before religion existed. Even the species we were before homo-sapien stole territory and fought over land. Chimps fight wars over land.. Stealing land is hardly caused by religion, it's simple human nature. This is where I have to correct people when they have to say things like religion is the cause of all these horrible wars and bloodshed and is responsible for so much death and destruction etc. Simple human nature of greed and aggression can be blamed. People fight over land and resources; they would do so with or without religion.

 

It is my moral opinion. Opinions cannot be right or wrong. You as an atheist should know that!

No they are not. Now you are relying on linguistic revisionism to prop up your arguments.

Action or inaction may be prompted by thoughts or beliefs, but that doesn't mean they automatically follow.

How do you know how any one person voted just by their religion? Maybe some did vote the way you wanted. Maybe they couldn't vote. Maybe they didn't know about the vote.

Acts of aggression? So? Are you saying acts of aggression are wrong?

 

It is more stupid that you don't recognize true evil. Yes pisslam and it's inbred, brain dead, mysognistic, pedophiliac, necrophiliac, racist, violence and death loving cult followers is evil.

 

to bad for pisslam but Islam has fowlers and versions that can be good or bad or a mix don't think they have much of a necrophilia problem any where though

 

Allah followers some how often choose the bad version.

 

Please explain to me why any instructed Buddhist should give way ludicrously to illusion: I am used to 'Christians' denying Christ - they get money and power by it.

 

“A faith is not a faith if it must be forced.” (posted August 30, 2001 10:35 PM)

Any religion that has a death penalty for apostasy is not a faith, and a religion is not devoid of aggression against others because you say so.

You said, “Holding a certain religion is hardly a good reason to attack someone.”

You claim that is your opinion, but you are defining what is a religion based upon a dictionary or your opinion not the definition held by the religion (which could be as small as one Prophet yet to corrupt other minds).

Clinton said: "The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others [that Negroids are Kenites, decendants of Cain, and the mark is upon them]. Our commitment to religious tolerance [of cannibalism, and eating the brains of our dead and those slain in battle] goes back to the very beginning of our nation."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...e-u.s-apologize-for-the-cairo-embassy-attack/

The history of religion is one of slaughter of innocents, which the religion may justify because those slain were not 100% human or they were predestined to be evil. A religion may slay based upon the movements of the stars or planets, it does not need a scientific reason.

“Mission of Inaction” is in fact an action. If the robot by “Mission of Inaction” allows to be harmed a human being it has violated its first law.

You are sharing a fox hole and it is discovered that the other person’s belief (religion) is that of the enemy and his thought is to slay you in your sleep, oops you are a member of the Psi Corps, do you then persist in your opinion that you cannot physically act until he physically acts?

We discover terrorists before they complete their mission many times by acting on their beliefs (religion), and the police attack them.

Freedom of Religion is not a right that goes against the other parts of the Constitution prohibiting treason…

You said: “People don't take land because their religion told them to. They take land because they want the land. They might use religion as a justification for it.”

"Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated."

If the religion tells them they must spread beyond a set of borders, and when occupying land they take it for the religion for all time, they take the land because their religion told them to.

“In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:…” (Genesis 15:1

Now, you can talk till you are blue in the face, “to correct people when they have to say things,” but they got that covered:

"[9.32] They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it." {Feel free to read it in context; a link is provided for that.} http://quran.com/9

“Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. “

"18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.

20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:18-20)

To allow by mission of inaction, to submit or be passive to the detriment of freedom of speech, is an act of aggression against enlightenment. {See the Monsters in the id:}

 

You want me to explain for them? I admit I do not understand most of their stuff. All I know for sure is I had a Monk show me how to shove my foot through a face or whop someone upside the head...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)

“The Theravada school teaches that there is no universal personal god. The world as we know it does not have its origin in a primordial being such as Brahman or the Abrahamic God. What we see is only a product of transitory factors of existence, which depend functionally upon each other. The Buddha is said to have said: "The world exists because of causal actions, all things are produced by causal actions and all beings are governed and bound by causal actions. They are fixed like the rolling wheel of a cart, fixed by the pin of its axle shaft." (Sutta-Nipata 654)[4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

There is no illusion that Islam is a causal action. Is this why Burma established Buddhism as its official religion to the chagrin of Islam:

“This is, because that is.
This is not, because that is not.
This ceases to be, because that ceases to be.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratītyasamutpāda

Is a Buddhist denying the Buddha when he claims Islam has no consequences?

 

You, Islam and monks are all illusions, as the Buddha explained. It is not surprising that you are totally bound up in illusion: Buddhist monks, however, are supposed to be learning how to escape from this hellish wheel of pain and suffering.

 

The consequences of Karma cannot exist without some god like judgment day, the justice of a reincarnation of Moslem’s into swine and pigs, or something other than Buddhists escaping by becoming Islamifascist axle grease.

Saying MoHamMad’s Karma is come home to roost is too simplistic, and ignores billions of other inputs.

For ordering the killing the flies with DDT my father was worshiped as an incarnation of a destroyer god; got cool pictures of scary temple; the effects of DDT must have been something to behold for a people with perfect ahimsa. So what exactly happens due to Karma? If the Buddhist does not believe in reincarnation like those Hindus, and does not believe in a god of justice, what are the consequences to MoHamMad’s actions?

These Buddhists were not born yesterday, they have fathers to tell them of forced Islamic immigration at the hands of the British, and they are not blind to past Islamic separatist movements. Give somebody an inch and they'll take a mile.

There are many actions that are probably responsible for the Buddhists killing the Muslims, first of which is the creation of an Arab religion for the sole purpose of breaking of the covenant of Allah with Abraham that his seed would have from Egypt to the Euphrates. {period}

Someone has to make consequences happen, right? So why not Buddhists? If there is no reincarnation or god for Karma to work, someone has to make crap happen.

Maybe those Muslims were not killed by Buddhists. Maybe it was spontaneous human combustion karma.

 

Whose quote is that? It's not mine.

I'm not the one being argumentative..

I think that you shouldn't attack someone JUST for their religious belief.. You disagree. Fine. It's an opinion. My opinion cannot be wrong, so I don't know why you're sitting here trying to argue with me about it.

 

“This is where I have to correct people when they have to say things like religion is the cause of all these horrible wars and bloodshed and is responsible for so much death and destruction etc.” http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...monks-attacking-muslims-9.html#post1062590185

"Beware the beast man, for he is the devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death." (29th scroll, the 6th verse)

 

I didn't recognize that quote as you pulled it out of context but failed to include ... so I could know.

That's great but I'm not afraid of words and I will keep my opinion.

 

“You still don't understand what you're dealing with, do you? Perfect organism. Its structural perfection is matched only by its hostility.” http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000859/quotes

“Here are some quotes that although taken from different areas kind of need some explanation. Who exactly qualifies as a messenger?

‘…[7.37] Who is then more unjust than he who
forges a lie against Allah or rejects His
communications? (As for) those, their portion
of the Book shall reach them, until when Our
messengers come to them causing them to
die, they shall say: Where is that which you
used to call upon besides Allah? They would
say: They are gone away from us; and they
shall bear witness against themselves that
they were unbelievers’

‘[22.75] Allah chooses messengers from
among the angels and from among the men;
surely Allah is Hearing, Seeing…’” (posted August 30, 2001 10:35 PM)

Look at the absolute perfection of this logic:

“…when Our messengers come to them causing them to die, they shall say: Where is that which you used to call upon besides Allah? They would say: They are gone away from us; and they shall bear witness against themselves that they were unbelievers…”

When your opinion does not save you, you will bear witness to their messenger that your opinion was false. It is pure code duello, trial by combat, the fact that nothing saved countless ones with your opinion proves your opinion wrong.

 

You can be as afraid as you want, and show me all the quotations you want.. I've lived in both near-pure Christian and Muslim communities and never had any trouble with aggression despite what those books they read say. So I'm not concerned. I'm sorry.

 

The question is why Buddhist are attacking them. So if you are not concerned why are you here? Are you suggesting Buddhists are worse than Christians?

I am not afraid because I am a believer; I have already thought I was dead, and casually faced it with, “it has been good…but that’s all folks,” one time I woke up with an angel’s face staring down upon me, and I mean on a scale of one to ten with Grace Kelly at 3 my angel was a 10, and my dick moved and hit the rough part of the catheter...

Your opinion says: “Holding a certain religion is hardly a good reason to attack someone.”

But, false gods do it all the time. That is what is learned by the pupil of a false god.

In any translation you want, it has nothing to do with judging morality, or judgment day, or being good, it has to do with the here and now of rejecting the revelations of their false prophet.

http://quran.com/7/37

http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch7.html

The karma or action is a religion that attacks based upon rejection of their revelations and verses, which are about rejection of Islam, which is not a faith but a Government.

So how exactly does karma work with regard to transmigration for the Buddhist if Islam conquers?

What could they possibly be afraid of, don’t they make up 80% of the population of Burma; Muslims have not reached critical mass yet?

If they are really good they can come back as an imam instead of a rat catcher?

 

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=communications&size=First+100

If it is not fear of the mentally ill false prophet’s communications prompting violence in defense of enlightenment, is this the same old crap that any government tyranny breeds? Basically the formative years under a tyranny is bound to affect the craven and sometimes the lowborn love something lower than them to kick. So basically the Muslims are just easy targets for the abused children to beat up on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Burma

“Between 1962 and 1974, Burma was ruled by a revolutionary council headed by the general, and almost all aspects of society (business, media, production) were nationalized or brought under government control under the Burmese Way to Socialism[50] which combined Soviet-style nationalisation and central planning with the governmental implementation of superstitious beliefs.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Burma#Military_rule

“During the military rule of Ne Win (1962–198, he attempted to reform Burma under the Burmese Way to Socialism which contained elements of Buddhism. In the 8888 Uprising, many monks participated and were killed by Tatmadaw soldiers. The succeeding military regime, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) patronized Buddhism, although persecution of Buddhists contrary to the regime, as well as persons of other religions, namely Islam and Christianity, continues.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar_buddhism#History

{My Father’s girlfriend was killed in front of his eyes in Burma by a Jap.}

Such a long history of suffering. And a lot of it with the love of Russia and China; as if anything else is new.


And then these guys in Sri Lanka:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/SriLanka/LTTE-lost-because-of-Al-Qaeda-Tamil-Tiger-leader/Article1-579519.aspx]LTTE lost because of Al Qaeda: Tamil Tiger leader[/url]


“During the British colonial era, some Sri Lankan Buddhists were influenced by racial ideologies which had first developed in Europe. Some of them adopted the view that the island of Sri Lanka belonged to Sinhalese Buddhists alone, and that all other ethnicities were alien.” http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/53970

Damn, that sounds familiar:

"We, the Palestinian Arab people, who believe in its Arabism...Article 8: Bringing up Palestinian youth in an Arab and nationalist manner is a fundamental national duty. All means of guidance, education and enlightenment should be utilized to introduce the youth to its homeland in a deep spiritual way that will constantly and firmly bind them together." http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/pid/12363

Basically Islam is just getting in Burma and Shi Lanka what the Grand Mufti advocated in Palestine and Hamas to this day advocates…

We should not justify any of it though, it is just reasons of “why” cannot just accuse Buddhist side of not being Buddhists and heap all the karma onto them.