10/15/2005: Monk protection
 

http://cellar.org/2005/monkmobile.jpg

Sad, is how I'd tag this one.

Buddhist monks in southern Thailand are, by their very definition, anti-violence. But they are increasingly the subject of violence from Islamic terrorists -- in motorcycle drive-bys, grenade attacks and even IEDs. Muslims are the minority there and are in an increasing state of unrest.

So the monks have had to take defensive measures... developing the monkmobile, above, a prototype in which a monk can still go around and collect alms. In another approach, the traditional saffron robes of the monk are upgraded with a traditional saffron bulletproof vest.

http://cellar.org/2005/monkjacket.jpg

(From Eyeteeth and thai-blogs.com via we make money not art)

Very sad. Usually the assholes that are eager to administer violence at these levels are spineless cowards, so they tend to target the non-violent people or organisations. I guess the reason for that would be so maybe they won't have to run after they put on a plastic badass display.
When I see monks now all I can think of is "Anger Management".

Thanks for the unexpected Saturday image, UT.... Very nice.

Yes. Once they've killed all the monks and pacificists, women and children, grandma's and grandpa's the only people they will have to battle will be the soliders. The mother-less, wife-less, child-less, religion-less soldiers. They'll have to face them sooner or later.

What cowards! Utter shit beneath the shoe! :mad2:

Motheres everywhere care about their children. How do we teach them such different things? People and stars are made of the same stuff. Sometimes I find stars more inspiring. What glory in hurting someone who would never fight back?

ME
http://lettingmebe.blogspot.com

Is that a machine gun mounted on that bike?

I think it's just a riot shield.

Just below the little window in the bike's riot shield there is a moveable gun!

The monk is non-violent... good for him. I wonder how he feels about the guard being violent on his behalf.

If trouble starts the guard will be shooting on his own behalf. :lol:

Can that thing fly too?
Look like someones WWII airforce ID-decal on the left "wing". :)

unbelievable
 

While I thoroughly disagree with islamic terrorists inciting violence based on 'american foreign policy' (I have no problem with American foreign policy) --- at least I can fathom it. At least it is conceiveable.

Needing to kill the monks? Holy f'n crap.

We all know that not all who follow Islam are terrorists. However, it's time they got their SHIT UNDER CONTROL. As of right now, I completely associate Islam with suicide bombings, and terrorism.

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/5/22365595_F_tn.jpg

What???? it's not THEIR "shit"! How could they stop some crazy people just because they have the same ideas about God??? Like saying isn't it time the aetheists got their "SHIT UNDER CONTROL" and stopped things like the colombine high massacre and for that matter all shootings, violence and crime done IN THEIR NAME ?!?!?!?! whats that sorry, you can't? because you had nothing to do with those crazy people who did that? please stop being stupid!!!

grr.

Did the columbine massacre occur "in the name of atheism"? NO. Perhaps you can grasp the freakin point now.

So, YES, perhaps all the religious scholars who represent Islam SHOULD be concerned that people are starting to associate Islam with terror. I am. And yes, while I acknowledge (AND DID IN MY PREVIOUS POST) that not all for follow Islam believe in terror, almost ALL terrorists are muslim, acting in the name of islam.

Some interesting viewpoints can be read here. I do not subscribe to all of them, but they raise some very interesting points.

My point was that the ASSOCIATION exists and exists because of their actions. They should be concerned. I know if I owned a 1,000,000 employee business and 5% of my employees were acting radically and killing people in the name OF MY COMPANY, THEN AS MANAGEMENT OF MY COMPANY I WOULD TAKE SOME HARSH STEPS TO PREVENT THE SOILING OF MY COMPANIES' NAME. This was my point.

*edit -- to clarify my point: I didn't mean 'the individual non terrorist followers' of islam bear this responsibility of 'CLEANING THIS SHIT UP'. I meant Islam as a religion needs to seriously take action here. There is not enough 'outrage'. Example: the Catholic church finally had to take new policy into consideration re: the sexual abuse. In other words, they needed to GET THEIR SHIT in order (their effectiveness in doing so is questionable, but that's not my point) Perhaps Islam needs to take the opportunity to GET THEIR SHIT in order. THAT's my point. Still think it's a stupid stupid point?

The Muslim radical Right is trying to co-opt governments and societies everywhere, but their numbers are relatively small, so they are doing it through force and terror. The Christian radical Right is doing the same thing here in the US, but there's enough of them that they don't have to resort to blowing people up in their own country. Overseas, however, is another matter.

hmm
 

re: radical Christian right: I assume your point is that US policy overseas re: the war in Iraq and 'blowing stuff up' is based on the radical Christian right, who wants to eliminate Islam in the name of Christianity, somehow indirectly has controlled our armed forces --- but I don't see it.

I do realize that I committed a faux-pas --- I took an IOTD and commented mostly on the political nature behind the image, as opposed to the image itself. I'm happy to move the political discussion off the IOTD thread.

I will take the time to make an observation re: the image.... anyone else notice the BULLSEYE painted on the armor on the bike? Is this a symbol with an alternate meaning..... or is this "if you're gonna shoot, please (subliminally?) shoot here at the plated armor instead of my body". :biggrin:

Yeah.

Your legitimate concerns that terrorists need to be stopped, controlled, have new policies considered are shared by me and by all reasonable people. We differ, however, when you say "Islam is responsible". I disagree.

There is no central control mechanism in Islam, there is no discrete "THEY" responsible, or able to get something in order. For every Catholic priest whose actions tar the image of the Catholic church, there are many more who are equally appalled at the situation, just as non priests, even non Catholics are. When terrorists commit their crimes, every reasonable person is scandalized and outraged. Including muslims. Including Imams.

Even your example of a million employee company, which you headed, that had 50,000 criminals is flawed. Obviously, "your" company would be "your" responsibility, and you would have both the authority and the responsibility to take action. I've already pointed out that there's no Pope of Islam, in charge, that can lay down the law. Furthermore, your numbers are ridiculously off. There are well over a Billion muslims in the world, and that would put your 5% of bad apples at 50 million plus. The entire population of Iraq is about 25 million. I don't think your figure is close. Even say, 1%, 10 million terrorists, is ridiculously high. I'm just blue skying here, but an easy number, an extremely generously high number would be perhaps, ONE million "Islamic" terrorists. How many is that? How many more muslims are NOT terrorists? 99.9% percent are not terrorists. Yeah, these are back of the envelope numbers, but I don't think I'm underestimating the number of "Islamic" terrorists. I'm probably overestimating the number of terrorists that take action in the way you're talking about.

So, yeah. I DO think it's stupid to let the tiniest fraction of people define the group. It's not a very homogenous group to begin with, and every muslim I've ever talked to says that the actions done "in the name of Islam" say that it is a lie.

Yes, we do know that. And in the next breath you contradict yourself.

You make that association because that's how it's portrayed in the media. You could be a more discerning consumer of the media and you would come to a different conclusion.

***Set apart for emphasis***
There is a LOT missing from your association here. Islam is not about terrorism. Talk to people, read for yourself. Use your judgement Compare and contrast what you hear and read. Consider the source and their possible motivations. It is remotely possible that you could find your conclusions unchanged. Fine. You did the work to understand the issues. But I think it is far far more likely that you'll learn that there's more to Islam than suicide bombings and terrorism. Don't believe the hype.

bigV, others
 

You are ALL missing my point.

The association is there. Period. I'm not defending it, advocating it. If you don't think Islam (And yes, while there is no 'pope' there are grand poobahs) as an entity should do one thing about it, great. Head in sand.

So, why don't you hold all Baptists responsible for Phelps, Terry, Robertson, and the KKK? Sure, there's no Baptist "pope", but there are grand poobahs. Why haven't Baptists, as the single entity they so *obviously* are to you, done something about the repugnant actions of a small minority of Baptists?

We're missing your point, or we don't agree with your point?

If we're missing it, explain yourself. If you say my head's in the sand, that implies I insist on not seeing something you do. That sounds like you think I'm merely disagreeing with you. There's a difference, an important difference.

I want to explore this a little: the grand poobahs and what "they" should do about it. Do you know who these poobahs (imams) are? Have you read anything by any (and there are many) of them? Do you know what "they" are saying? I think you fall into a dangerous trap by lazily assuming there's some controlling "they". There isn't. Stop wasting your time looking for "them".

There ARE imams who incite violence, yes, there are. Many many more of them oppose it. Which do you think makes better copy? Which is more exciting? Which one will make the 6 o'clock news?

You make a suggestion for improving the situation: "Islam as an entity should do something about it". That's a great start. But it just begs the question, who is going to do something? Individual muslims? And when one DOES do something peaceful, will you talk about "Islamic" peaceniks? You probably mean the leaders in the communities of faith, the imams. What would you have them do? Condemn the violence? Do you have some other suggestion as to what "they" should do? Be specific.

You're on the right track, keep going. I'll work it with you.

Be careful guys.... UT is responsible for your actions/comments since you are all cellarites. Don't force him to get his :eyebrow:

*****beaming with sarcasm while hitting alt + s*****

IMO most terrorist/radicals aren't at all commited to any religion or group. They use these for something to conveniently (and cowardly) hide behind, hoping to imply the "safety in numbers" theory. They alone are, as we all are, responsible for the wrongs they do. :(

capn, you said it three sentences what I wanted to say in three pages. I like yours better now. Well put.

;)

Let me just say that I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have been quite as quick to go around blowing up non-Muslims in today's sociopolitical environment. I don't think we're directly conducting a crusade, per se, but it is more than a little curious that the war was conducted and continued despite us having found out that the entire alleged reason for conducting it in the first place was a mistake.

I also find it curious that Bush panders so obviously to the Christian Right, alludes to his actions being guided by God (Jehovah, to be precise...not some other deity, but The One True Deity (tm) ). He is a self-proclaimed observant Christian, a religion whose main purpose is to essentially sort out everyone on Earth by making sure they are aware of the Great 50/50 Choice, (they like to refer to it as "Free Will"), wherein the masses of the unwashed and unrepentant can avail themselves of Jesus' mercy by accepting him as their Saviour, or burn in eternal anguish...and they're more than happy to achieve this evangelistic imperative through whatever means necessary.

I'm thinking that there is a large number of people here in the good old USofA who would be real cool with a Christian theocracy, and that is real scary. I think some of the vanguard of that fetid governmental philosophy are already in power, so if there's an element of "who cares if they're dead, they're only a bunch of Muslims" to our foreign interventions of late, it is probably par for the course.

MISSING it. I see alot of arguments from people defending Islam as not preaching violence. But, that's not a point I'm trying to make, so I don't know why that's a counterpoint. My point is the association exists whether it's justified or not. So, people can choose to pretend that association doesn't exist (hence my head in the sand comment), or they can acknowledge it whether it's a justified association or not.

If you don't think a very very large number of people are associating Islam with violence, you are wrong. I'm not asking if you agree with the association, merely it's existance. It's rapidly growing existance.

Whether you choose to agree with the COUNTLESS articles that discuss how Islamic leaders need to denounce killings of innocents 'in the name of islam' is irrelevant.

It's different re: McVeigh re: Ohio. He didn't do it in the name of religion. Yet, suicide attack after suicide attack after suicide attack after bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after nightclub bombing after hotel bombing after school siege after plane explosion is 'IN THE NAME IS ISLAM'. So, you go ahead and choose to believe that there isn't an association growing across the world with islam and terrorism. Again, not saying that true islam preaches this, but I'm saying these terrorists are have an EFFECT on people's perception of Islam, whether YOU **like** it or not.

Ok, I guess I totally misread you.

I **thought** you were saying that you totally associate Islam with suicide bombings and terrorism. I **thought** you were saying that it was up to Islam to seriously take action here. I thought you were saying that your opinion of Islam is decided by what they do, and not by you.

I totally missed the real message that you were concerned that Islam was getting a possibly bad rap in the eyes of the world. I missed the part where you really talking about how dumb people can be. Sorry, dude. My bad.

So, I guess we agree. There's a TON of bad press out there about Islam. I agree that "their" public relations machine is puke compared to the terrorists'. I agree with you that some people, most people will believe **anything**, regardless of the truth of the matter. Witness the stooopidity surrounding the Intelligent Design as Science comedy. I guess we're right inline with each other.

Oh, except that you persist in posting stuff like
and you clearly imply that you believe this part is true. You don't qualify it, your don't set it apart, you repeat it as though it were true. Let me just say this, In the name of Islam, it just isn't so.

EVEN IF the moron hollers "Allah Akbar!" just before he blows himself up, DOESN'T MAKE IT IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. Even if he has brown skin doesn't make it so. Even if he has a foreign sounding name doesn't make it so. Even if he lives in the Middle East doesn't make it so. Loudly repeating a lie only produces a loud lie. Not truth. No matter how long or how loud. It never, ever makes it true.

But that part about the bad rap? Yeah, I totally agree.

lol bigv
 

bigV, you're right. None of the suicide bombings are in the name of islam.

None of what is happening in Indonesia is.

None of what sept 11 was about, was.

none of london was.

none of the attempts thwarted in France, Spain, and other countries re: Moroccan and Algerian muslims, is.

You're right, and I'm wrong. This association is all a bad rap. The bad press machine made it happen.

Apologies, they're clearly deserved.

True enough, Islam is not about terrorism.

Islam is about Submission.

That's what it means, right?

The idea is that EVERYONE will submit to Allah.

Not to "some god equivalent to Allah" but Allah.

The one, the only, whose prophet is Muhammed, etc.

Terrorism, as one face of the Jihad, is one such means by which this will occur.

Islam does allow for non-Muslims to live in Muslim lands, however, they are subject to significant restrictions, cannot build houses of worship, cannot celebrate major religious festivals, have to pay a tax (which can be 1/3-1/2 of one's salary plus other applicable secular taxes), and if there is any suspicion that an attempt is being made to convert a Muslim, one can be imprisoned, punished, and even killed.

You know something. If we didn't have this silly thing called religion we wouldn't have a self-delusional charade to hide behind. We would have to own up to our imperfections. And if those imperfections are blamed on someone else we could at least look at who it was blamed on and find out. We wouldn't have some fictional entity to use as an excuse for predatory actions, or bestial behavior. We would just have to look at ourselves and say, well fuck, I guess I'm just not civilized after all.

Taken as a whole, fuck religion.

(G)god(s) may exist but if they want anything from me then they need to Fedex me a fucking manual and CV that's hard to refute. Otherwise anyone, anywhere who wants me to believe anything other than something that can at least be actually seen can kiss my ass. Repeatedly...

The hell it doesn't.....even if the rest of the Islamics don't want it to. It's a stain on them that they have to remove. If someone blows them self up in the name of the Baptists, they have to disavow that action or it sticks.
I was thinking vice versa. All the muslims who eschew violence but smirk when their neighbor kills an infidel.
It won't stop until everyone on all sides work to stop it. Nobody commits these acts without somebody knowing in advance. :mad:

The whole argument sortof falls down in my opinion when you consider aetheism as a religion - i.e. set of beliefs just like the other "religions"... admittedly a very free faith, but a set of beliefs that are based around the principle that there is no god just like religions are a set of beliefs based around the principle that there is a god. What we need is people to question everything they do and try to work it out according to this "right" and "wrong" morals we all intrinsically feel - not anger and hate.
i think.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair color. You can use it in the same line on a form, and people will know what you mean. But it doesn't mean you have hair.

Did anybody see the picture of a monk in a sidecar? Pretty cool, huh.

I like the color coordination between the sidecar and the monk's robe.

This from somebody whose username is tang. What do you expect?

Just kidding. Welcome to the cellar, tang. Uh, what monk are you talking about?

The only problem is that I don't belive it to be true.

The people that blow themselves up do it because their religion says it's the thing to do, not because it makes any form of sense outside of that framework.

Without the fervent belief that their ephemeral little soul was in jeopardy or that they get the virgins and the grapes and no women when they go to heaven they would have a much more shallow pool of motivation to draw from.

I lump athiests in the same boat as religionists, one asserts an absolute positive in many, many forms, and the other asserts an absolute negative.

Neither (any) of which is provable.

Thanks!
Uh, you know....the monk....in the sidecar. :worried:

Do you have a link to this fine picture?

Sure. Right, tang? Trying to get the thread back on track?:D

Which of these statements do disbelieve?
I think that many terrorists have mixed motivations, including a portion of political, religious, and psycho. I think they're trying to get something done here on earth, and at best, secondarily motivated to achieve some reward in the hereafter.

I think the "religious" motivations are as much for those who stay behind as it is for those who die. They, and we must include more than just those who actually explode on impact in that "they", use the colors of religion for the recruiting value, for the prestige value, for the abililty to leverage such forces as shame and xenophobia as motivational tools. This is how propoganda works. Terrorism in the name of religion is terrorism powered by propoganda. "This is the truth, this is why, don't question (my religious) authority, obey (my political orders)." That's where the disconnect happens. A religious leader says something for secular reasons, but justifies it in religious terms.

I doubt we disagree on this point. If you do, please correct my misunderstanding.

I once pariticipated in a conversation with some people whose opinion I valued, whose expertise I respected regarding some questions I had about "But what is the church say about that?", or words to that effect. The reply (from deacons and the pastor) was unsatisfyingly zen-like: "YOU are the church. What do you say?" Now I have greatly simplified the discussion I had, but the truth of the matter has grown on me.

You could say, since the terrorists believe it is in the name of Islam, it therefore is. By the same logic, if I say it is not in the name of Islam, then it is not. Viewed in these extremely narrow terms, we have a pretty useless stalemate. I'm not bent on convincing you of the truth about any religious tradition. I sense considerable hostility on your part to the whole notion. Live and let live.

But Islam is not about terrorism. If it were, how do you account for the hundreds of millions of Muslims who are not terrorists? Are they not Muslims then? Lapsed? Slacking backsliders? Closet Baptists?

The texts, the teachings and the actions of the overwhelming majority of the followers of Islam all, all, indicate peace and not terror.

I thought he was referring to a different picture of a different monk. One that was happier, more carefree, and maybe in something like this ...

Yeah, that's the sidecar, but with this Monk...

http://www.flakmag.com/tv/images/monk.jpg

Now you've lost me. :confused:

That monk is great tang.

Kill em all, let God sort them out.

I'm w/ you, Bruce. :neutral:

I've never watched this show, but I recognized him from the commercials I saw a few times:

http://www.usanetwork.com/series/monk/

AhHa.....thanks linknoid. :thumb:

It's too awesome!

Welcome to the Cellar, 62LBkZM. :)
What are you referring too, Linknoids link or UT's picture?

Still feel the same way?

Yes I do.

capnhowdy appears to be away at the moment. I would be quite happy to renew this conversation with you. I re read it and I'm up to speed.

What's your point?

Weak comparison. There are many more Muslims than Christians overseas. Christians haven't been blowing things up and killing in the name of religon for a long time.

so mercy, have you read this thread? do you have a position on the topics discussed?

Yea, I followed it. I agree with some of what you have stated, some not so much. But I pretty much agree with most of it.

[QB]
They alone are, as we all are, responsible for the wrongs they do. [/QB]

BigV [QB]I doubt we disagree on this point. If you do, please correct my misunderstanding.[/QB]

I would disagree with this exchange. If it were true than each time they blew themselves up there would be fewer and fewer bombers until there were none left. But in fact that is not the case. Behind each person is a cleric or Osama, or whomever, who is convincing these people to take these actions. But note it is never the person who is preaching them to take actions who is doing it. Personally I don't think they have the balls to do it, others may just say that they understand their role is to incite the actions of others to serve the cause. Until we address the Madrass and leaders, cut the head off the snake, this stuff will continue.

thanks for your reply, sir.

I would like to clarify my statements you referenced here.

You quoted me very narrowly, which is fine, but I want to explain my remarks. I will start by saying I agree with you. That the "they" in question, the "they" in the first sentence, when it refers to the group of people that are inculcating the suicide bombers, brainwashing, incitin, propagandizing, and lying to the actual bomb carrying people, those people, THEY bear the largest share of the responsibility. A smaller share, not zero, belongs to the bombers themselves. The actual bombers, I think that was the "they" originally referenced by capnhowdy.

My "I doubt we disagree on this point" remark was made with this distinction in mind: that the people who bomb are responsible for their actions, IN CONTRAST to the overwhelming majority of Muslims for whom such violence is an abomination.

So,

"they"==bombers, and their brainwashing incitors==responsible for their actions

"they"==Muslims in general !== responsible for the actions of bombers.

I'm not trying to split hairs here. It is an important distinction.

Remember the song "Pencil Neck Geek" by Tom Blassie? He had a line in there:

"They say these geeks are a dime a dozen. I'm lookin for the guy supplyin the dimes."

Bullseye.

Agreed, 100%.

I see... so muslims never experience Schadenfrude.

So, you speak for "the Muslims" now?

What the hell is your point?

Carelessly throwing down absolute qualifiers like "never", are you picking a fight?

Out of over a billion, a thousand million people walking the earth, who are Muslim, I reckon, some of them, somewhere, some when, have experienced the guilty pleasure of enjoying seeing an imagined oppressor's suffering. Sure.

I reckon the guy on deck for the custom explosive vest hoots and hollers when he sees the carnage of the one batting ahead of him. He's "a Muslim", he counts, right? There's your Schadenfrude right there. Yeah, I bet Muslims do experience Schadenfrude. So what?

What's your point?

Do you have a problem with my math? What are you trying to say about Muslims? I'm trying to say that the overwhelming majority of them don't bomb, don't kill, and that like most people, find this kind of violence abhorrent. Until I get some more solid evidence to the contrary, I'm sticking with that.

If I spoke for the Muslims, I wouldn't be asking now, would I?

My point is, saying the terrorists are not true Islamics and that the real Islamics are all about peace, love, sugar & spice, is bullshit.

Islamics are people first, and like all the rest of the people in the world, subject to the same emotions, frailties, and aggressions. They are no more peaceable than anyone else. Their religion is no more peaceable than any other. Remember, it's the only major religion that's approves of killing. It spells it out, complete with the rules of engagement. I'm not talking about people claiming to represent the religion, approving of certain murders, as some powerful Christians have done, but the religion itself.

They've been killing millions of people, for centuries, especially each other, in the name of the true Islam. You can't tell me that when Al-Baghdadi put a $100k bounty on Lars Vilks, there aren't a lot of people who consider themselves true Islamics, if not openly agreeing, nodding silently in accent. That's because they are people first.