[Buddha-l] Re: Greetings from Oviedo

[Joy Vriens]

Dan Lusthaus wrote:

Quite a lot of points of agreement, some disagreements

> One might look to Sikh history for a preview of what the European wake-up
> call might be like. Sikhs were initially universalists, anti-sectarian,
> pacifistic, etc. A few generations of dealing with Muslims (back before
> there was a US to blame for everything), and suddenly everyone's last name
> was Singh (lion -- signifying a martial attitude), and a carrying a dagger
> at all times became one the mandatory religious duties of every male.

...what the European wake-up call might be like... What a nightmare, I 
prefer my current dream.

The whole survival of the fittest program must have been misspent on me. 
I don't understand how the result of such fine project could be me. No, 
if my life were to turn into a battle, I would decline the offer and 
leave my place to fitter/eager ones than me. Not even Krishna could talk 
me into doing "my duty".

>>The logic of terrorism is condemnable, but it is implacable. In a
>>democracy everyone is responsible. It are the people that elect their
>>governments.
> 
> 
> Here you move into another fallacy we could add to the list: Terrorism is a
> political statement, merely a horrible means to a justifiable ends. There is
> a reason that in Iraq, Bali, Tel Aviv, Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles,
> Chechniya, etc., the targets are not political leaders, but innocent
> civilians.

Not so sure. I think that if they could pick between innocent civilians 
and a political leader they wouldn't hesitate. In the US, they did 
target the WTC and the Pentagon although they could have easily gone for 
a more civilian target. Innocent civilans are not systematically 
targeted, although they often are (the Beslan school hostage was 
absolute horror).

> That's why it's called terrorism. It's not that the leaders are
> protected behind Pope-mobiles (although that is becoming an increasing
> reality), but because ordinary people, innocents, are their intended
> targets. They are not surrogates, they ARE the targets.

Yet it is not ordinary people that can make political decisions. They 
are targeted in order to put those who have political power under 
pressure, through public opinion. The simple killing of some bunches of 
innocent civilians is not the objective of terrorism. They want to 
spread terror. Why? Just for the sake of it?

Just like you made distinctions between groups of muslim culture, we 
should distinguish between different types of terrorism. They are 
terrorists in that they use the same horrible methods, but they don't 
have all the same objectives. The statement of one of the London metro 
bombers clearly linked his decision to become a terrorist to the British 
presence in Iraq. Whether that is the bottom line of his thought we 
don't know, but that is what he is rappoerted to have himself stated.

> Why do you think
> that is? The statement being made is always about hegemony -- and preferably
> that they should have their "right" to do terror with impunity guaranteed by
> the World Community [the PLO set the precedent for that; the more innocent
> people they killed, the more the world insisted their demands should be met,
> and the less was expected of them in return].

I don't think this was an invention of the PLO, using violence to 
terrorise or to force political decisions is as old as the world.

> To the terrorists it wouldn't
> matter if a Democrat or a Republican was in the White House -- 9/11 was
> originally conceived during Clinton's presidency; nor whether Labor or
> Conservatives ruled from 10 Downing St [the British Jihadists have said
> explicitly the goal is to have a Muslim -- meaning one sharing their own
> Jihadist values -- living at that address], and so on. How any of us votes
> is largely irrelevant. Do you think the jihadist movement would have
> evaporated with a Gore victory in 2000?

No, Clinton bombed the El-Shifa plant in Sudan while Al Gore was his 
vice-president.

> Algeria is a splendid, if somewhat ignored history lesson for all this.

As an aside, it would be if it weren't still a taboo subject in France. 
The historian Pascal Blanchard tries with his latest book "La fracture 
coloniale" 
(http://www.algeria-watch.org/fr/article/div/livres/fracture_coloniale.htm) 
to open a general debate, but so far without too much success.

> While the French were debating among themselves whether to stay or leave,
> the left blamed the de Gaullists for everything (much in the way Eric was
> suggesting I was wrong-headed), the right insisted that anything less than a
> hardline was giving comfort to the enemy and unpatriotic, while the
> "intellectuals" delighted in the paradox that the Algerians made clear that
> should the elections the French insisted take place before they withdraw
> result in an Algerian slate triumphing, the first thing the new Algerian
> leadership would do -- they promised -- would be to abolish democracy.
> Should we stay, even as imperialists, for their own good, or leave the
> country to them, even though they promise to make everything worse once
> we're gone? -- that was the parlor chat. The Algerians were true to their
> word. The first thing they did was abolish democracy, and the country has
> been a mess ever since. Hundreds of thousands have died, killed by the govt.
> Every time a popular protest movement begins to emerge, everyone even
> marginally involved or just in the wrong place is killed. A couple of
> decades back they killed 25,000 in less than a week, since protests were
> starting to mass publicly. In Syria Assad senior racked up big numbers as
> well, as did Saddam H in Iraq (part of that contemporary "culture" I
> referred to). Pol Pot was a short-lived amateur compared to these guys, yet
> Syria sits on the Security Council and Libya heads the UN committee on human
> rights. Is there any wonder that some people are cynical about the UN?

Beni mentioned the Divide et impera principle. It has been very 
(un)skilfully used for colonialistic and other geopolitical purposes. It 
is obvious that by the simple withdrawal (under pressure and after new 
supplementary wounds had been opened) of the federating common ennemy, 
those divisions wouldn't simply disappear.

> Tunisia has had relatively benign and tolerant leadership for many decades,
> yet jihadists from Tunisia, Algeria, etc., crisscross Europe and Asia
> looking for ways to kill people most horrendously. So it's not simply
> economics, nor simply oppressive regimes (since non-repressive regimes also
> engender terrorists who take their show on the road), nor simply any of the
> "usual suspects."

No it isn't, but the Jihad culture feeds on economics, oppressive 
regimes, humiliation, gang culture etc. etc. and uses anything that has 
federating power.

> France couldn't figure out what to do with Algeria then,
> and it still can't figure out what to about Islam today.

It has created an Islamic Council, with members elected from various 
Islamic communities and tries to stimulate the appearance of a French 
Islamic Church so to speak. The objective is that only French imams 
under the authority of the council will have the right to preach. 
Whether that will work?... Meanwhile it tries to keep the public 
republican places free from religion.

> For this list, however, the history lesson should go back to the days when
> the Silk Road, from Iran to China and everything in between was Buddhist.
> And then came the Muslims. Then read the Tibetan apocalyptic literature
> (Kalacakra, etc.) about what happens to Muslims during the apocalypse.

Do you consider Kalacakra a Tibetan invention? Open question. Fact is 
that it is put forward as one of the spearhead teachings of Tibetan 
Buddhism and that is quite worrying.

> If, however, you are having trouble recognizing huge ethical distinctions
> between Hiroshima and Bali, then we are all in trouble and the age of Mappo
> has arrived. If the distinction escapes you, please have a long talk with
> any Koreans, Chinese, Burmese, Filipinos, etc. you know. They will explain
> it to you.

If I look at a victim of Bali or Hiroshima, victims of intended actions 
purposely committed by other humans, I don't see a difference. They 
probably won't either. The only ethical decision I can make, is that 
never will I participate in either action or will allow it to be carried 
out in my name. If that ethical decision of me brings on the age of 
Mappo, which I doubt, so be it. Such a small action followed by such use 
consequences. It reminds me of the law of Karma. ;-)

Joy