# Mumbai Madness



## Rhisiart (Nov 28, 2008)

Is it time to stop calling these so called religous militants 'terrorists'?

IMHO, they are no different to M18, the Mafia, Camorra, Somalian pirates or the Russian mafia. 

It is relatively wealthy young men aged 18 to 30 who for what ever reason have become disenchanted with society and feel something special by  belonging to a group or gang. Religious fundamentalism may be the _raison d'être_, but it is gang membership that is the real enticement for these boys.

The attraction of belonging to a 'religious gang' may be so tempting that they may even be willing to give up their lives.


----------



## reed (Nov 28, 2008)

The Mafia is in it for the doe, territory and a nice house in the country to retire with mama and the kids. Gangs, ditto without the retirement home and the kids.  Certain terrorists are a mix between gangsters, lost souls and real crazy religious nut cases, who may even need some doe (thus a pretex) but wish to forget about the house in the country.
 In fact there are those that wish nothing more then a word in the newspaper the following day. With a photo if possible. But that's an option. 
  Then there are those who wish to liberate a country, a region, a state or...here's a kicker, an idea. Whatever that may be. Goodness. Things are starting to get complicated now.
  One thing is sure, there are a lot of folks lining up to join one of these groups. In fact one could even fill a football stadium. For starters.
 SIGH.


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 28, 2008)

Yea. Gandhi showed the way. Civil disobedience (especially in large numbers) is more effective than indiscriminate killings. 

The IRA failed because of arrogance and corruption within its ranks. The smart Republicans turned to jaw jaw as opposed to war war (far more powerful and likely to result in long term dividends).

Ultra-nationalism, ultra-theoreticalism and ultra-political ideology are short-term 48 hour motivations to fame that do little to promote altruism, but do much to satisfy selfish individualism.

So yes, I am in agreement.


----------



## reed (Nov 29, 2008)

Former terrorist M. Begin (the colony maker) made "peace" with A. Sadat. Former terrorist Arafat (isolated by Hamas) made "peace" with Rabin. Those that made an effort to tend a hand are knocked off. Rabin & Sadat. Both by their fellow countrymen. Why is that?
  And, of course, what happened to Gandhi and Martin Luther King?


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 29, 2008)

Good point. However, what about all the folks working behind the scenes for these brave individuals? Many (perhaps not all) survived and made some important differences. 

Most of us remember and revere Gandhi and MLK. These so-called terrorists have had their day and will fade into history as nobodies.

Less face it, Gandhi and MLK were not death fetishists (apparently the 'terrorists' in Mumbai were garroting wounded civilians if they were found to be still alive after being shot).

P.S. Do you think the moderators should set up a new sticky: _The world according to Rhisiart and Reed_?


----------



## reed (Nov 29, 2008)

P.S. Do you think the moderators should set up a new sticky: _The world according to Rhisiart and Reed_? [/QUOTE]


 Sure is going that way Rhisiart if this continues.

 In any case, there will always be ball breakers. That is the history of Man. It's the reason, the ways and the whys that we have yet to figure out. We all hate violence but, like Bob Marley sang "a hungry mob is an angry mob."

Tracy Chapman sung "revolution, now" 

 Simon Nicol and Dave Swarbrick played "Time to Ring Some Changes" even earlier...

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq4g6aiEYWQ

I think terrorism today is fustration and the constant need to do something, however irrational and stupid and mean it may be. 
 There are nice people in this world and there are cruel people. BOY, is that ever deep Reed!! If you have a cause there will always be the mixed bag of the participants. Moderate, extreme, cruel, forgiving, sadic, crazy, etc. 
 What to do?


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 30, 2008)

Fairport Convention and Al Qaeda within a single context. That's a first reed. Way to go...


----------



## reed (Nov 30, 2008)

I couldn't RESIST Rhisiart. Resist? Resistance? Hmmm.


----------



## reed (Nov 30, 2008)

What did I say earlier concerning certain terrorists: "with a photo if possible. But that's an option"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7755684.stm


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 1, 2008)

They'll have their fifteen minutes of fame.


----------



## reed (Dec 1, 2008)

A couple of days anyway. NEXT?


----------



## bbloke (Dec 2, 2008)

When I first read this thread, I felt the perpetrators of the killings at Mumbai should naturally be considered terrorists.  Having followed the thread, read the BBC article, and thought about it a bit more, it is indeed a tricky issue.  

What _really_ motivates such people?  If their religious beliefs, it compares strangely with the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi, for instance.  A sense of belonging to a gang and a cause to fight for?  Likely to be at least part of it, and plenty seem willing to lay down their lives for their gangs, regardless of any religious beliefs.  Is it anger or a desire to extract revenge?  To be honest, I don't know what to make of the attackers at this point, and I'm not sure we'll easily get to the bottom of it.  A concern of mine is that this could create yet more tension between India and Pakistan...

Also, I was interested by an article on the BBC recently:



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> Indian Muslims say they do not want the gunmen killed by the security forces during the attacks in Mumbai to be buried in Muslim graveyards.
> 
> Community leaders believe the militants cannot be called Muslims because they went against the teachings of Islam and killed innocent civilians.
> 
> ...


----------



## VirtualTracy (Dec 2, 2008)

That's a terrific quote and pretty much sums up my opinion!  They shouldn't even _be_ referred to as _'Muslims'_ as this implies that their religious beliefs should be taken into account, but seriously, if you really *think* that it's a deeply religious experience to kill or injure others, then such actions have more to do with what people are really capable of rather than what religion can teach us.


----------



## bbloke (Dec 2, 2008)

Very well put, VirtualTracy.


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 2, 2008)

Anyone read the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins? He argues that the statistical chance of there being a God/Allah is practically non-existent.

I don't agree with him (on a scientific footing, not a theological one), but his diatribe against the three Abrahimist religions makes sense.

I don't care whether Islam is version 3.0. If the Qu'ran is so dangerously ambiguous (like the Bible and its predecessor the Talmud), then further refinements are clearly needed.


----------



## bbloke (Dec 2, 2008)

No, I haven't read The God Delusion.  I've seen enough lectures, watched enough interviews, and read enough articles by Dawkins to know that I don't have a lot of time for him.  If you're very impressed by his book, I'd suggest also having a look at a critique of his work.   For instance: Terry Eagleton's review, Gregg Easterbrook's comments, or Alister McGrath's (former atheist, PhD in molecular biophysics, and now theologian at the University of Oxford) book "The Dawkins Delusion?"

I really don't want to get into an internet debate about religion and I do my best to keep out of them (sigh), but it does bother me when people make sweeping generalizations about religion.


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 2, 2008)

Can you have it both ways? You may, for very sensible reasons, not want to discuss religion (a posture I can respect), but then suggesting that you are bothered about people make sweeping generalizations about religion seems to declare some invested interest (and I am only playing the devils advocate  here - if you will excuse the pun ).

I simply made the point that all the Holy Books contain considerable dangerous ambiguity (i.e. fanatics will look to interpret what they want to see). 

However, Dawkins (for me) is also guilty of the very crimes he accuses others of doing.


----------



## bbloke (Dec 2, 2008)

I don't think it lets my argument down [Edit: ah, I see you've just edited your post], really, but perhaps I should elaborate from a more personal point of view.  A little on the rare side for me!  A tangential post, sorry, but it might help to see why I react the way I do (?).

"On the ground," I see people of different religious groups working together, organized visits to places of worship associated with other religions, joint religious meetings in the interest of furthering understanding, and people of different religions generally being peaceful, tolerant, and working to try to better their environment. This has included Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha'is, Buddhists, and more.  I do not see religious people as being a dangerous, unthinking sheep, while atheists are the ones who are thoughtful and are standing up to better the world. The world is not black and white.  For instance, when there are nearly two billion people who are Christian and over one billion people who are Muslim, how could any thinking person start to talk in terms of people within one category (i.e. approximately billions of them) being the same? While I'm not regularly witnessing it, I don't doubt that religious people can and do stir up trouble, but... we're all human and people of all walks of life will cause conflict (intentionally or unintentionally) through differences of their beliefs, whether religious, political, sporting, or whatever.

On the flip side...   I have not-infrequently seen and heard of places of worship being vandalized.  Before anyone says this must surely be mindless vandalism, it has included graffiti that was clearly atheist, targeted, and educated (not simply thuggery).  In the area where I live, church-goers have been attacked and potentially attend church under threat of violence.  A friend who has recently become a vicar tells of how there is debate within the church about whether the traditional "dog-collars" should still be worn by vicars when in public, due to the increasing, targeted violence towards them.  I also remember a new vicar coming to a church and having to have a police escort when he arrived.  On a regular basis (not quite daily, but more than weekly), I receive mocking comments about religion, many of which are very insulting.  A local atheist group has been putting up some quite offensive posters on a place of worship, too.  An aggressive act, surely.  To cap it off, I then hear some people talking about religion being the root of evil and how we'd be better off if we eradicated religion from the face of the planet.  Worrying language, from my point of view...

As a sort of summary, I basically see religious people, on the whole, quietly working to better themselves and improve their environment, but I encounter frequent and unprovoked antagonism in daily life, which has been led by non-religious people.  Some more threatening events than others.  Irony of the situation?  (Note: to make sure there is no misunderstanding, this absolutely does _not _mean I believe atheism leads to being a bad person or that all atheists are the same!  I want to make that extremely clear.)  For this reason, I know the subject is a sensitive one for me and I have very little patience.  If I'm blunt, I feel people should know better, especially in a day and age when we are taught to be wary of stereotypes and the dangers they pose.  Plenty of information is out there, there is no excuse for tarring 80-90% (off the top of my head) of the world's population with the same brush.

I don't mean to rant, and I'm not getting at you, Rhisiart.  Honestly.  Basically, the reason I back away is not cowardice or laziness but because it is a sensitive subject, and I prefer to take a deep breath and stand back, rather than risk becoming very angry.  It's an act of restraint.

Slightly more on topic...  Would any text, ever written, not be interpretted in different ways if presented to, say, one billion readers from different locations?  I can imagine that no matter how black-and-white a document might seem at first, the context, cultural differences, language differences, differences in era, and more will always result in differences of opinion.


----------



## VirtualTracy (Dec 2, 2008)

bbloke said:


> Slightly more on topic...  Would any text, ever written, not be interpretted in different ways if presented to, say, one billion readers from different locations?  I can imagine that no matter how black-and-white a document might seem at first, the context, cultural differences, language differences, differences in era, and more will always result in differences of opinion.



To me the above scenario is _exactly_ where religion steps in ... 

ie: 

_"Let he/she who is without sin cast the first proverbial"_

Or

_"Let he/she who interprets this text, realise that it is their own personal interpretation and that others will interpret the same text differently due to may reasons, but that it is good to seek out as many interpretations as possible to better view/understand the world around us and to not judge too harshly the interpretations of others ... "_


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 3, 2008)

bbloke said:


> I don't think it lets my argument down [Edit: ah, I see you've just edited your post], really, but perhaps I should elaborate from a more personal point of view.  A little on the rare side for me!  A tangential post, sorry, but it might help to see why I react the way I do (?).


I am not an atheist. I was brought up as a Latter Day Saint (no longer practicing) and one of the things I like about the Mormons (a religion not without its controversies of course) is that they teach that the Bible suffers from much translation ambiguity. For them it is the spirit of the Holy Scriptures that count, not the literal meaning of every word. In other words read it with an open mind and an honest heart.

For me, atheism has become almost a religion (although I agree that by no means are all atheists fanatics).  I respect the right of anyone to have their own private views, but being overtly anti-religious doesn't seem very tolerant to me.  However, whilst most religious people are quietly getting on with their lives, increasing numbers (particularly in America and the Middle east) seem to be becoming more fervent in their fundamentalist views.

In a nutshell, it appears that the more blind one becomes in following one&#8217;s religion the less religious you become, for the simple reason that humility and tolerance are the cornerstones of any belief.  Religious (or atheistic) fundamentalism is like any man-made ideology, such as fascism, in that allows its adherents to feel superior to other human beings, even sometimes to the point of actually wanting to kill them.

P.S. As a footnote, I&#8217;m not sure I believe in a  God as portrayed by the Church of England or any other religion, but I have a faith that there is some super-natural entity (or perhaps super-scientific would be a better term) that we have no way of understanding fully.

P.P.S. I did tone down my original response bbloke (hence the edit), because it too was ambiguous in that it could have been interpreted that I was having a pop at you. I wasn&#8217;t, or at least I didn&#8217;t intend to.


----------



## bbloke (Dec 3, 2008)

OK, thanks, Rhisiart.  That helps me to understand where you are coming from and I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote.  Likewise, I was not meaning to have a go at you, either.  I wanted to illustrate why it can be a touchy subject for me: I feel religious groups are often under both verbal and physical attack, and I worry about this being deemed somehow acceptable.

Much along the lines of what you've said too, for me, one has to approach such subjects with humility, tolerance, and a genuine desire to seek the truth.  Whether theist or atheist, anyone who adopts an attitude of being in full possession of Absolute Truth, and that everyone should learn from them, really needs to learn some fundamental lessons...  "They're stupid because they believe X," and so on.  We cannot possibly hope to _completely _understand even one other human being or our own planet, let alone the physical universe or an all-powerful Creator, and to me it is arrogant in the extreme to think otherwise.  It's also worth noting that I never cease to be impressed by how open-minded and thoughtful many within established religious groups can actually be, despite misconceptions.

You touch upon some good subjects.  As soon as one group starts to feel superior or, vice versa, feels one particular group is inferior, this paves the way for all sorts of unpleasantness, to say the least.  We must learn from history.  This is why language about beliefs and/or believers, in terms of being stupid or the source of evil, can be very, very, very concerning indeed.  Interestingly... what happens when one group starts to hear this?  They feel threatened.  And how are they likely to respond?  They may well become more hardline, perceiving an external threat and looking for internal threats too.  No surprises what can result from a cycle of suspicion and antagonism.

Actually, without going into a whole new story, this rather links back to the original topic of discussion...  Similarly, as ever we're dealing with human beings all the time, regardless of what they believe, and we are all subject to human frailties.  I'd argue losing sight of what one's religion truly stands for is necessary in order to commit atrocities in its name.  But that's my opinion.

I'll round off my post by some comments made by a Sikh friend of mine.  I've often felt that Sikhism seems to have a disproportionately large number of wise people within its ranks.  My friend once said to me: "Oh, we have our fundamentalists too, any group does.  They're very hardcore, they just don't know what they're hardcore about."


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 3, 2008)

Here's a quote from our local vicar when we lived in Oxford: _'Fundamentalists believe they need only concern themselves with other people's weaknesses, not their own'_.


----------



## bbloke (Dec 4, 2008)

Nice quote, Rhisiart.  

At risk of turning this into a Quotation Association thread, I also remember the Dalai Lama speaking, where he said something to the effect of: People often blame "the government" or "society," but for real change to occur they need to start by changing themselves.


----------



## reed (Dec 5, 2008)

Thank you bbloke, Rhisiart & virtualTracy.
   You guys have put things in a nutshell. I want to say many things but I'll let it go (for the moment). I think we all agree on tolerance and the need to NOT use religion/or anti-religion as a tool for hate and manipulation....and boy there are a lot out there trying to do just that. I've always been "do your thing just don't impose it upon others" kinda guy. Live and let live, what.
 I just remember, as I write this little titty a line from Jethro Tull (sorry bbloke, yet another quote) 
"Christmas spirit is not what you drink."


----------

