If some country had its troops occupy my country and especially Lahore, I would like to think I would fight and be among the insurgents, though I would not kill my own people by blowing myelf up. Now i dont expect a favourable reponse here but still wanted to check it out.

Question:
If an Iraqi gets angry at US for invading his country and decides to go to USA , get hold of some WMD and blows it up killing hundreds of 1000's of people. Who would you blame?

Choices:
Individual
Islam
US Government
Individual and Islam
Individual and the US Government

 

I notice someone voted for "Individual and Islam". I wonder why you would vote that way without at least first checking if the hypothetical Iraqi in question was a Muslim.

I would vote for individual, Islam and US Government. Mostly, though, I probably would be less concerned with placing blame and more concerned with what to do to make our country and our world safe again. Such a move would put the entire planet in danger. What would placing blame do except make the likelihood of humanity surviving all of this insanity even smaller?

NNN- if an Iraqi terrorist strikes North America, it would most likely be a Muslim, and he would most likely do it in the name of God. Just as if an American right-winger uses a bomb to blow up an Abortion clinic, it will most likely be a Christian. Other scenarios are possible, but unlikely. Let's not be politically correct to the point of ignoring the realities of the world.

Anyway, since neither "Individual, US government and Islam" nor "don't place blame; take action toward peace" was an option, I didn't vote.

".......if an Iraqi terrorist strikes North America, it would most likely be a Muslim, and he would most likely do it in the name of God. Just as if an American right-winger uses a bomb to blow up an Abortion clinic, it will most likely be a Christian"

and he would do it in the name of God!
Is it by coincidence that the only religions that never seem to resort to violence are the non-theistic ones?? I didn't vote for anything available because I probably lack "righteous" indignation.

quote:

...and he would most likely do it in the name of God

I see your point - yes the chances are an Iraqi would be a Muslim - but Bik framed the question in terms of invasion of a country and nationalism, not religious warfare. Maybe there should have been a "nationalism" option, too.

I guess nationalism and religion are often yoked together to bolster support for wars. God was on everyone's side, it seems, in World War One. Could this insular nationalist/religious perspective be summed up as a kind of dark side of conservatism, or traditionalism? Could we blame Christianity for 'shock and awe'?

To do horrible deeds that we'd never dream of doing just as individuals, humans seem to need the (fake and nebulous?) justification of some Grand Idea - posterity, patriotism or sectarian religion. Non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism, would point out that those ideas are illusions, wouldn't they?

It's interesting that a level of arousal is needed in order to make people in a group ready to go and kill members of another group. In the past, we know different kinds of propaganda were used:
- During WWI allied soldiers were told that German soldiers bayoneted Belgian and French babies, and tossed the bodies around, bayonet-to-bayonet, laughing all the while
- In early modern Europe, good Christians were told that Jews and witches (pagan Wiccans) boiled and ate babies and raped young virgins. This was to justify the inquisitions.
- In late Roman times, Romans were told that Christians ate babies so that the Romans would accept the persecutions, which were intended to unify the state by reducing the number of religions
- During WWII we were all told that Japanese tortured prisoners of war, both civilians and captured troops, in internment camps*
- In the American south, after slavery was abolished, whites were told that black rapists roamed the land, attacking white women; and now and then a black man was lynched, which would 'prove' the accusation
- During the westward spread of European settlers, the settlers and the city-dwellers of the East were told that native North Americans attacked peaceful whites, murdered them, and burned their homes and kidnapped their children to raise as their own; but meantime, buffalo were slaughtered to deprive the prairie nomads of food so that they would accept the internment camps called 'reserves'; native kids were kidnapped and placed in religious/political brainwashing camps called 'native boarding schools'; and contagious diseases were introduced into previously disease-free areas because the whites knew the natives had little natural immunity.

It has been known since ancient times that religious unity fosters nationalism. Also, the religious 'network' is a built-in, in-place, paid-for-by-the-users propaganda machine. We see George W. Bush pretending he's religious (when all he really does is grandstand to the more fanatical element -- he doesn't even to to church regularly, and never unless the cameramen are there).

So we can blame Fundy Christians, Zionists and Fundy Muslims, they are certainly eager to muster the armed force of their nations in their headlong rush toward Armageddon; but it's just about groups of people being aroused by tales of blood and horror so that they can be mobilized to attack 'the other'; mobilized by those who have the most to gain.

* Friends of ours were interned. They said it was not the Japanise who treated them brutally, the Japanese couldn't spare men who were needed for fighting so they used the native people for running the camps, and they had their own reasons for wanting to have the upper hand for a change.

Babs. You had lucky friends. The Burma Railway alone accounted for the deaths of 16,000 prisoners of war, as well as of tens of thousands of imprest local labour. That was entirely Japanese run.It was a Japanese project.

Ask any veteran around here about how the Japanese treated prisoners of war and they'll tell you straight just how men were tortured, starved and brutally treated, in their thousands.The excuse that was given was that Japanese culture regarded a prisoner, a man who had lost or surrendered, as a man without worth

Frankly the idea that a claim of torture or ill- treatment of POWs by the Japanese is propaganda is utter nonsense.

quote:

Originally posted by FredPuli:
Ask any veteran around here about how the Japanese treated prisoners of war and they'll tell you straight...

Our friends were born in the Netherlands and went to the Dutch east Indies with their parents during th 1930's. They were interned for the duration of the war. They were in their teens. The wife, who was a strong girl, actually volunteered to work in the fields because the scuttlebutt was that you would at least eat well. That part was true enough; but the work was very very hard, stoop labor, the hours long, and they were beaten to boost output. The boy later to become her husband was in a different camp. After the war when the Dutch East Indies were ceded, they returned to the Netherlands. But then the 'strangers' as they called them went to the Netherlands. The story was similar to what happened in France with Moroccans as well as other parts of Europe. Immigrants were brought in to do the work the European-born did not want to do. But in their case, they saw Indonesians everywhere, and this upset them. They emigrated to Canada for a fresh start and are now very comfortably off and will leave a successful business to thier children. It was they who told me the Japanese did not oversee them, but the Indonesians did. The overall running of the camp was by an elderly Japanese with a handful of men. The field overseers were Indonesian. My friend showed my a damaged shoulder where the knout struck it during severe beatings. The beater was reprimanded by his own supervisor because only the 'tails' of the whip should strike the flesh; the knout could cause crippling injury, and make the worker useless.

I have known these friends for almost twenty years and cannot believe that they are lying.

I cannot say your friends are lying, either, Fred, since I know nothing of the experience in Burma. Perhaps both sets of internees are telling the truth but from a different perspective.

All I know is that when I hear of the brutality of, for example, Saddam Hussein to justify the invasion of Iraq, or of the Americans in Guantanamo Bay, I take such stories with a grain of salt. They may be true, or partly true, but they also make great propaganda. The kind of propaganda that makes us view the 'other' as inhuman and undeserving of any kind of compassion, and arouses our wish for revenge and 'justice'. And our side sure took it at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Babs you have one couple.In Britain there are still thousands of men who will speak to the starvation, brutality and torture that they suffered at the hands of the Japanese (and I mean Japanese, not locals ) and there is abundant evidence on film and record, quite apart from their personal accounts, to show that it was common. The Burma Railway just happens to be a notorious example of what happened all over and on a smaller scale . Your friends were Dutch, by the sound of it. Dutch prisoners, though some were on the Burma railway, were not very numerous nor were civilians who happened to be interned regarded in the same way as enemy soldiers.Remember that the Netherlands fell to the Germans before she could field an active army anywhere abroad.

The Japanese government has offered compensation but that is of scant use to the many who died.

Fred I have already conceded that the Burma stories may be true. The Indonesian variation may be true.

I will go farther and say that some of the stories of Indian raids on settlers in North America were undoubtedly true. But as in the "European version" ("All we wanted was to come in peace and trade and grow some corn and cattle") or the "Native American version ("They killed our buffalo and took our land") it is certain that the stories were used -- and often enhanced -- to create hatred of the enemy and justify one's own atrocities.

I will also concede that it is likely some black men raped some white women in the American south; although they must have been insane, in light of the reprisals that would come down, not only their own horrible deaths but reprisals on the entire black community afterwards. I further concede that some Jews may have eaten Christian babies; I don't know, I wasn't there.

That is the way that groups drum up the necessary hatred to prepare their members for killing.

My point: There is nothing wrong with people having a healthy skepticism toward stories of enemy baby-eating.

And that is all I have to say on the subject. Call me a Jap-lover if you like.

Over and out.

Well, at this point, the individual 'and' the US Government would be the 'reason'. I wouldn't necessarily place blame, because wars, and rumors of wars, are meant to be.

quote:

Originally posted by Sarai:
I would vote for individual, Islam and US Government.

NNN- if an Iraqi terrorist strikes North America, it would most likely be a Muslim, and he would most likely do it in the name of God. Just as if an American right-winger uses a bomb to blow up an Abortion clinic, it will most likely be a Christian. Other scenarios are possible, but unlikely. Let's not be politically correct to the point of ignoring the realities of the world.

will sticking with realities, if the above does happen there would be a 'blame game' .
Now i have seen the responses above (which are encouraging to me). My question, if the country above that was invaded was instead say...... China, Russia , Japan or Germany and some individual does the same thing. Would the relegion still get blamed again ?
My overall reason for this topic was to see if people are concerned about the reasons of extreem behaviour or will just be taking things out of context. Only 8 votes but still.... encouraging.

Bik asks: "...if the country above that was invaded was ... China, Russia , Japan or Germany ... Would the relegion still get blamed ...?"

I'm not sure if the question means, "if the U.S. invaded China and a Chinese person went to the U.S. and killed thousands of people, would the Chinese person's religion be blamed?"

If that is the question you intended, I would say it depends on the teachings of the particular religion, if any, to which the killer belonged.

Many Chinese are atheists, and many more are Buddhists and/or Taoists, and none of the spokespersons for either set calls for the faithful to terrorize and kill the enemy, promising sexual bliss for eternity if in the process the killer himself dies.

If the priests or monks did advocate such, it is very likely the religion would take some blame.

Japan, on the other hand, has a religion called Shinto, which teaches that the Japanese are superior and are destined to rule the world. This teaching was integrated with government policy in the 1920's and 30's, called State Shinto,and is blamed at least in part for Japanese aggression in China and the Pacific during the 1930's and 40's.

In the history of Jewish religion and its descendants, Christianity and Islam, there are many instances of the religion being used to motivate attacks on other groups. For Jewish examples, see the O.T. For Christian examples, see the history of Western Europe. For Islamic examples, see the history of the terrorist organizations over the past fifty years.

quote:

Originally posted by bik74:
My question, if the country above that was invaded was instead say...... China, Russia , Japan or Germany and some individual does the same thing. Would the relegion still get blamed again ?

Bik- If the US invaded any of the countries listed above, I doubt that an individual from one of those countries would use terrorism to retaliate.

I think it takes a religious-type of devotion and a promise of life after death to make a person commit suicide with the intent of killing thousands of civilians. I think it is highly unlikely that a secular-minded individual would choose this course of action. A secular-minded individual would be unlikely to commit suicide and would be unlikely to make civilians his prime target. Without God, suicide becomes a much less attractive option (why would I want to enter oblivion any sooner than necessary?), and killing civilians deliberately suddenly would have no value (how could I justify targeting civilians if I have no beliefs suggesting that the divine wishes them to be punished)?

So the opinion of Bab and Sarai is that relegion is neccessary element to be present for this type of action.
I actually disagree. The recent shia-sunni problems in Iraq and the hindu-muslim massacres in great partition and even as per the comments of london suicide bombers, a big motive is revenge.
Muslims and Hindus when they killed each other, did not advocate that they are doing ot for relegion but because the other side is doing it first. The same goes for current shia-sunni killings in Iraq.
The idea behind the bombing can simply be, my family and my people are suffering because of ...... and now i will return the compliment. Relegguion may (or maynot) be the last thing in that person's mind.

Your conclusion as to the meaning of what I said and (though I don't pretend to speak for Sarai, certainly what I draw from her statements) is quite uncalled for. We did not say that religion is a necessary element in such murders.

I gave the example of Buddhism in China in which religion was not a tool of the power struggle. I gave the example of Shinto in Japan in the 1930's and 1940's in which religion was a tool in the power struggle.

I said that it depends on the particular religion.

Zionism, Christianity and Muslim are all religions which have been used at times as tools in power struggles. Some sects are just a lot more militant than others.

Quakers are Christians. Yet they are not at all militant. They teach pacifism, and some of them even believe one should not fight to protect one's own homeland from invaders.

Some Sufi Muslims believe in passive resistance rather than terrorism as a way to gain political goals.

The terrorism practiced by Irish Republicans was encouraged by many Roman Catholic clergy, who also raised money among Irish descendants in the U.S. Yet the official position of the Roman Catholic church is that resistance to govenment is only justified if the government oppresses the Roman Catholic church.

When communisits and Buddhists were at war in Vietnam they did plenty of killing because they were fighting for territory and power. Yet as I have said, the religion (or lack of it, in the case of most Communists) was not blamed.

But some terrorists seem to be motivated only by religious fervor, and the hope of reward in paradise.

So religion is a sufficient but not necessary factor.

I was not accusing you of anything but simply said what i understood from your statements.

I think Sarai was referring to suicide as a form of terrorism, not simply any terrorist act.

I said "it depends on the teachings of the particular religion, if any, to which the killer belonged" as to whether the religion would be blamed. .

That doesn't sound like what you said: "So the opinion of Bab and Sarai is that relegion is neccessary element to be present for this type of action."

I suppose you are all warming up for a confrontation which was and is the last thing on my mind.
Quote of Sarai:
Without God, suicide becomes a much less attractive option (why would I want to enter oblivion any sooner than necessary?), and killing civilians deliberately suddenly would have no value (how could I justify targeting civilians if I have no beliefs suggesting that the divine wishes them to be punished)?
Quote of Bab:
I'm not sure if the question means, "if the U.S. invaded China and a Chinese person went to the U.S. and killed thousands of people, would the Chinese person's religion be blamed?"
If that is the question you intended, I would say it depends on the teachings of the particular religion, if any, to which the killer belonged.

I said what i understood was implied from the above.

No, I've made my point. Fair-minded people reading my post know I never said that religion is a necessary element in that type of confrontation. So it would be tiresome to keep chewing the same cabbage over and over. You do as you like. I'm done.