Can violation of human rights be justified?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:38 am

Many innocent human beings have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many more are under threat if Iran is attacked. Can such senseless killings be justified?

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:04 am

Its all about war. War means death, until it is over & who knows when that will be? Send the person or people who ordered it to happen, on the front line. I think they would have had another solution to world disagreements?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:14 am

Paula wrote: Its all about war. War means death, until it is over & who knows when that will be? Send the person or people who ordered it to happen, on the front line. I think they would have had another solution to world disagreements?

I agree. Sending people who order wars on the front line can be a solution. If these warmongers are removed from the scene then other solutions to disagreements might emerge.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:05 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Many innocent human beings have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many more are under threat if Iran is attacked. Can such senseless killings be justified?
yes.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:11 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: I agree. Sending people who order wars on the front line can be a solution. If these warmongers are removed from the scene then other solutions to disagreements might emerge.
nonsense, it is no solution at all. think rationally, please. here's an example: send george bush to the front lines. he's killed in short order. the united states is then forced to follow the constitution and make dick cheney, the vice-president, president. as the leader, he implicitly is part of 'the problem', so must be sent to the front lines. he's killed in short order. the united states is then forced to follow the constitution and make the Speaker of the House of Representatives president. as the leader, he implicitly is part of 'the problem', so must be sent to the front lines. he's killed in short order. the united states is then forced to follow the constitution and make the president Pro Tempore of the Senate, president. and on and on. what we're left with is total chaos in our political structure. that' perfect! just what terrorists, and other enemies of our country would love! heck, china might decide it's a good time to make an attempt at invading.

there are pipe dreams, and there's reality. if you want solutions to problems, it's probably best to think rationally about the problems, and focus on real solutions.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:17 pm

I think certain groups, because of their current hold on our government SHOULD be denied some human rights. Miami Cubans, Jewish settlers, Christian conservatives, Islamic militants, extremist Hindus, pro-U.S. Iraqis, racists and nationalists. This is my opinion.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:18 pm

David813 wrote: I think certain groups, because of their current hold on our government SHOULD be denied some human rights. Miami Cubans, Jewish settlers, Christian conservatives, Islamic militants, extremist Hindus, pro-U.S. Iraqis, racists and nationalists. This is my opinion.
what about you?

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:21 pm

When someone wages war on women and children, such as Islamic terrorists did on 9/11, they prove that they do not fit the definition of human. Therefore, they do not deserve "human rights".

David813 · Post by **David813** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:24 pm

anastrophe wrote: what about you?
I would gladly go down in a battle with any of these groups. My self determination and human rights should not be compared to the terrorists I mentioned.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:25 pm

To the militant Jesus freak TW2005; Go fight Bush's Holy War on the Arabs. They need new meat.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:27 pm

Sigh.....Good night TW. David needs a drink.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:28 pm

David813 wrote: I would gladly go down in a battle with any of these groups. My self determination and human rights should not be compared to the terrorists I mentioned.why not? you are proposing denying human rights to people strictly because of their religious or political affililations. that's exactly what the islamic jihad espouses.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:42 pm

anastrophe wrote: why not? you are proposing denying human rights to people strictly because of their religious or political affililations. that's exactly what the islamic jihad espouses.Not to mention the fact that David813 mentioned "racists" in his list of groups. Would this then, include himself?

David813 · Post by **David813** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:22 pm

BabyRider wrote: Not to mention the fact that David813 mentioned "racists" in his list of groups. Would this then, include himself?

To oppose someone because of race is nowhere mentioned in my posts. No, it is not possible to be racist against a religious cult like the evangelicals. Race is Black, White, Yellow, Red, Brown. The cause of many problems in the world is greed and God. These two evils are extinguished in a socialist society. Even a Neil Kinnock style Labor Party would be a tremendous improvement over where our country is heading now.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:28 pm

David813 wrote: To oppose someone because of race is nowhere mentioned in my posts. No, it is not possible to be racist against a religious cult like the evangelicals. Race is Black, White, Yellow, Red, Brown. The cause of many problems in the world is greed and God. These two evils are extinguished in a socialist society. Even a Neil Kinnock style Labor Party would be a tremendous improvement over where our country is heading now.
curiously, you remain nonresponsive to the evils of communism, to wit, the slaughter of tens of millions under communist regimes, for their beliefs.

religious or ideological cleansings, such as those committed by the islamic jihad, are evil, would you agree? if so, then why are religious or ideological cleansings, as committed by communist regimes, any less so?

David813 · Post by **David813** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:35 pm

Pol Pot once said: "To have a healthy garden you must pull the weeds." I am no Stalinist! You are obviously intelligent and must be aware that Stalin murdered all of the original Bolsheviks, made a pact with Hitler, he was a racist and had my political hero Leon Trotsky killed. Maoism is another completely different beast. The far left has many divides and they are deep. My party, the Socialist Workers Party regularly physically clashes with the U.S. Maoist RCP.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:45 pm

David813 wrote: Pol Pot once said: "To have a healthy garden you must pull the weeds." the despot, trivializing the murder of his people. Thomas Jefferson had a different take on it:

"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."

you do realize, that a pol pot would likely have had you 'rubbed out', as an intellectual and an ideologue?

The cool thing is that here, in evil america, you are free to express your opinions, even if they are counter to our system of liberty.

David813 · Post by **David813** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 2:49 pm

Seems all my comments lead to my being marginalized or dead! My point was communism doesn't equal Stalin and Mao. It has a rich interesting and abundantly diverse history. The demise of the USSR was the best thing to happen to Real Commies.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:03 pm

David813 wrote: Seems all my comments lead to my being marginalized or dead! My point was communism doesn't equal Stalin and Mao. It has a rich interesting and abundantly diverse history. The demise of the USSR was the best thing to happen to Real Commies.
the problem is that with very rare exception, communist regimes devolve into repressive, totalitarian regimes. that's the lesson learned from stalin and mao. freedom, liberty, the ability to express oneself without fear of government agents arriving at the door, are absent from such regimes. oh, i'm sure the retort will be that the patriot act has meant that government agents *do* show up at the door.

well, i've publicly and loudly proclaimed my support for gay marriage, gun rights, religious tolerance, violent video games, disdain for troglodytes like barbara boxer, support for legalization of most mind alterants (legalization, not decriminalization, mind you), and i've never once been visited by government agents. nor seen any black helicopters.

in virtually any communist regime you can name, i'd be an Enemy of the State, and would have been silenced.

it's great that communists can spout their ideology here in the free United States, something they'd be unable to do if they lived in a country that embraced their own ideology!

i love the irony.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:24 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Many innocent human beings have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many more are under threat if Iran is attacked. Can such senseless killings be justified?
Senseless or sensible killings can always be justified (by those doing the killing), if the end result is to the benefit of all mankind.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:50 pm

Godiva Girl wrote: First of all, Paula and Suresh I agree with you completely on this suggestion. The rich old republican pigs in charge of this war would never last a day in combat. Unfortunately, the dream will never come true.

Second of all, for heavens sake, Anastrophe. What is your problem? Paula and Suresh know that could never really happen. Why is it almost every post you see that isn't to your liking you have to rip apart and reply with such arrogance? Everyone has the right to post their opinions and thoughts and everyone's opinion is different. I have seen so many post's where in your reply you have cut down, belittled and corrected with your arrogant and know it all attitude.
Wow. It's funny, I was just following some posting by Anastrophe, and was thinking how I find his stuff intelligent, thought out, and backed up by fact.

Listen, GG, the whole point of forums like this is to DEBATE. Why is it that when someone comes along and refutes your arguments, you consider them arrogant?? You said it yourself: "Everyone has the right to post their opinions and thoughts..." Does that mean EVERYONE or just the ones who are in agreement with you and don't challenge you? Since anastrophe is a realist, he is arrogant and a know-it-all? As for the correcting, when I find information that is posted that's incorrect, I tend to post the facts, as well. And I've had it done to me. Frankly, I appreciate it when someone comes along with the FACTS. :-5

Hey Anastrophe....Talk about IRONY!!! :yh_rotfl

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:54 pm

Godiva Girl wrote: First of all, Paula and Suresh I agree with you completely on this suggestion. The rich old republican pigs in charge of this war would never last a day in combat. Unfortunately, the dream will never come true.so rich old democratic pigs would charge into battle like john wayne?

Second of all, for heavens sake, Anastrophe. What is your problem? Paula and Suresh know that could never really happen. Why is it almost every post you see that isn't to your liking you have to rip apart and reply with such arrogance? Everyone has the right to post their opinions and thoughts and everyone's opinion is different. I have seen so many post's where in your reply you have cut down, belittled and corrected with your arrogant and know it all attitude.
Key concepts: "Everyone has the right to post their opinions and thoughts and everyone's opinion is different". what part of that don't you understand? I don't have a right to post my opinions, if they differ from yours?

there's a difference between belittling the person, and belittling the idea. ideas should be able to be defended regardless of the emotional content behind them.

still wondering about the kerry thugs. why was their tire slashing vote-tampering okay with you?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:55 pm

and once again, the old rule is proven: timing,

is everyth

ing.

:yh_clown

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:58 pm

anastrophe wrote: and once again, the old rule is proven: timing,

is everyth

ing.

:yh_clownJinx...(You owe me a Coke) :yh_bigsmi

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:18 pm

Godiva Girl wrote: All I'm trying to say is that Anastrophe doesn't have to be so nasty in his replies.
Godiva Girl wrote: The rich old republican pigs in charge of this war would never last a day in combat. Unfortunately, the dream will never come true.

you were saying something about being nasty?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:18 pm

Oh dear Anastrophe,

Such solutions look irrational but seeing the magnitude of the problem these solution seems a probable solution. And again the solutions are also exemplary. You are assuming that everybody down the line (part of the problem) will behave in the same manner. Someone might change his perception and opt for the peace.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 8:22 pm

Lon wrote: Senseless or sensible killings can always be justified (by those doing the killing), if the end result is to the benefit of all mankind.

What was the benefit to whole mankind by killing lakhs of innocent people?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:23 pm

I did find the lack of interest in members of the senate in signing up members of their own families to go to war quite eye opening. Obviously it is incredibly poor tactics to send the leaders of a country to the front lines (even though it seems that in Braveheart times they all charged in side by side) Strategy is what wins wars. And lots of artillery. But why should their own children not be the first ones enlisted?

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:26 pm

Godiva Girl wrote: Suresh, you are the voice of reason. Thank god someone else in this thread can reply to a post in a decent manner.OK, That's it, I can't take it anymore!!! :-5

GG, apparently the only folks who pass muster with you are the ones who agree with you. You have an incredibly narrow-minded view, and I sincerely hope you don't have a job that entails dealing with reality in any way. Because there is no way you could possibly function.

You STILL have not responded to the question in the other thread about voting. Is your plan to just ignore the topics where you are challenged? Is being put on the hot seat really this difficult for you???

Of course I'm just a stupid Republican who needs therapy...maybe THAT'S why you continue to ignore challenges in other threads that you yourself have posted.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:50 pm

David813 wrote: I think certain groups, because of their current hold on our government SHOULD be denied some human rights. Miami Cubans, Jewish settlers, Christian conservatives, Islamic militants, extremist Hindus, pro-U.S. Iraqis, racists and nationalists. This is my opinion.

How do you define extremist Hindus and are there extremist Hindus in your country?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:56 pm

Dear GG and BabyRider,

I try to focus my attention on the issues. I take the views of other people on the issues as an education for me and an opportunity to broaden my knowledge & information base. This is the purpose I am here in the Garden.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:02 pm

koan wrote: I did find the lack of interest in members of the senate in signing up members of their own families to go to war quite eye opening. Obviously it is incredibly poor tactics to send the leaders of a country to the front lines (even though it seems that in Braveheart times they all charged in side by side) Strategy is what wins wars. And lots of artillery. But why should their own children not be the first ones enlisted?

Dear Koan,

I agree that it is not a tactical solution. I agreed with Paula as this solution agrees with my principles of management that Leadership should be by example. A leader should be ready to lead the people from the front-line, and it is again a principle that does not mean that the leader should always go to the front-line in case of a war. He should feel the hurt and pain a war causes. And how will he do it if he does not go the front-line and experience the hurt and pain himself?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:32 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: How do you define extremist Hindus and are there extremist Hindus in your country?
i can't speak for david, but there are extremists in every religion. extremist hindu attacks on muslims occur frequently in india.

let's not forget the thugee cult as well. that was a warped, extremist hindu subculture, that reveled in killing innocent people.

as i said - there are extremists in every religion...

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:17 am

anastrophe wrote: i can't speak for david, but there are extremists in every religion. extremist hindu attacks on muslims occur frequently in india.

let's not forget the thugee cult as well. that was a warped, extremist hindu subculture, that reveled in killing innocent people.

as i said - there are extremists in every religion...

My dear, you seem to be not correctly informed about India and Hindus.There is nothing like extremist Hindu. There are no extremist Hindu attacks on muslims in India. There are of course communal clashes beteween Hindus and Muslims, and there are various reasons for that. In some cases clash was started by Hindus and in some cases by Muslims. You must also understand that these clashes are localized and have no bearing in other parts of the same city. Such clashes are never sanctioned by Hindu religion and those involved in it are not treated as heroes but criticized by other Hindus.

Thugee cult was not a part of Hindu culture. This was a cult which has its own faith and beliefs. It was more of a law and order problem which was effectively dealt with by the rulers of those times. Every country has such cults and they are not sanctioned by the religion.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:19 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: My dear, you seem to be not correctly informed about India and Hindus.There is nothing like extremist Hindu. i beg to differ. there are indeed extremist hindu.

There are no extremist Hindu attacks on muslims in India. There are of course communal clashes beteween Hindus and Muslims, and there are various reasons for that.
i fail to see what differentiates such attack from those being due to extremism. at minimum, they are due to religious intolerance - the same thing behind islamic jihad.

In some cases clash was started by Hindus and in some cases by Muslims.
certainly.

You must also understand that these clashes are localized and have no bearing in other parts of the same city. Such clashes are never sanctioned by Hindu religion and those involved in it are not treated as heroes but criticized by other Hindus.
perhaps. but more below.

Thugee cult was not a part of Hindu culture. This was a cult which has its own faith and beliefs. It was more of a law and order problem which was effectively dealt with by the rulers of those times. Every country has such cults and they are not sanctioned by the religion.
the thugee cult was a hindu cult. they were adherents to the hindu god kali. what you are expressing above is a tautology, and a dangerous one at that.

'because the thugees were a cult, they were not part of the 'sanctioned' religion; because they were not part of the sanctioned religion, they cannot be extremists of the religion, because they were not part of the religion in the first place. therefore, hindu extremists do not exist."

by this rationale, muslim extremists do not exist, because they do not adhere to the sanctioned religion. dandy. but then, who are these people who are strapping bombs to themselves to murder infidels, and go to their glorious martyrdom? how do we describe them? they describe themselves as islamic jihad, dedicated to the destruction of all that is not islam.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:29 am

anastrophe wrote: i beg to differ. there are indeed extremist hindu. i fail to see what differentiates such attack from those being due to extremism. at minimum, they are due to religious intolerance - the same thing behind islamic jihad.

You may differ. As I have said earlier that you seem to have been incorrectly informed about Hindus and Hinduism. Hinduism does not have the concept of extremism. It believes that different people have different ways to practice their faith and beliefs and people should respect each other's faith and beliefs. Also Hindu-Muslim clashes are not due to religious intolerance as far as Hindus are concerned. I can not say the same thing for Muslims. These clashes are community clashes because of many resaons which are mainly social and economical, totally other than religion.

I have been born in a Hindu family. I have spent 58 years of my life practicing Hinduism. I have not thought even in my dreams about killing a non-Hindu because he does not believe in my religion. The thought itself is foreign to my religion. My religion does not sanction religious intolerance. Please don't compare Hindu's religious beliefs and practices to Islamic Jehad. It does not prove any thing except hurting my feelings.

The thugee cult was a hindu cult. they were adherents to the hindu god kali. what you are expressing above is a tautology, and a dangerous one at that.

'because the thugees were a cult, they were not part of the 'sanctioned' religion; because they were not part of the sanctioned religion, they cannot be extremists of the religion, because they were not part of the religion in the first place. therefore, hindu extremists do not exist."

by this rationale, muslim extremists do not exist, because they do not adhere to the sanctioned religion. dandy. but then, who are these people who are strapping bombs to themselves to murder infidels, and go to their glorious martyrdom? how do we describe them? they describe themselves as islamic jihad, dedicated to the destruction of all that is not islam.

Every cult has a God or Goddess around which its members build their beliefs and practices. Like many other countries, Indian society also has people adhering to such cults. But their actions can not be taken as sanctioned by the religion. Religion is well above these things.

Also there is no term like infidels in Hinduism and there is nothing like killing infidels to achive glorious martyrdom. As far as Islam is concerned I have no credentials to explain why do they describe themselves as Islamic Jehadis. You have to seek this answer from Muslims.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:34 am

There are always going to be bully's, they should be running this country, not us innocent idiots here on some forum, as our ass grows out of shape? Talk about horse manure, this is Star Time at its best!

Is freedom of speech a human right? i thought so, don't be so mean. hahahahaha. have you worked out today? Time for class. (the more the merrier, join in, come on).

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:42 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: You may differ. As I have said earlier that you seem to have been incorrectly informed about Hindus and Hinduism. Hinduism does not have the concept of extremism. It believes that different people have different ways to practice their faith and beliefs and people should respect each other's faith and beliefs. Also Hindu-Muslim clashes are not due to religious intolerance as far as Hindus are concerned. I can not say the same thing for Muslims. These clashes are community clashes because of many resaons which are mainly social and economical, totally other than religion.

I have been born in a Hindu family. I have spent 58 years of my life practicing Hinduism. I have not thought even in my dreams about killing a non-Hindu because he does not believe in my religion. The thought itself is foreign to my religion. My religion does not sanction religious intolerance. Please don't compare Hindu's religious beliefs and practices to Islamic Jehad. It does not prove any thing except hurting my feelings.
suresh, my intent is not to hurt your feelings. we are talking about religion here. faith and religion normally go hand in hand. however, dogma and religion also unfortunately tend to go hand in hand. and many, many people take dogma to be faith. what you are suggesting above is that hindus are perfect. that because hindus believe in tolerance and respect for others, that therefore it is not possible for some people to believe, and act, otherwise. again, this is the tautology i was referring to. if you dismiss any and all extremists as implicitly not part of the religion - so therefore non-existent - you effectively have the perfect excuse to ignore the problems. the same is done in the muslim world - the fanatics who behead people are not "true" muslims, therefore they do not represent the religion, therefore they are not part of the religion, therefore they are not a problem the religion even needs to bother to confront.

dismissing the conflicts as merely social or cultural is naive. culture and religion are deeply intertwined, and often cannot be divorced.

i was raised a christian, but i am not a practicing christian. i would probably be classified an agnostic by many, however i have very deep faith in God. i consider myself a pantheist, but unfortunately even that term has been recently usurped by a bunch of crystal-healing-brown-rice-birkenstock adherents. nevertheless, like you, i have never even dreamed of killing someone because they are not 'my' faith.

the Hindu faith, much like Buddhism, and other eastern religions, tends to be more of a 'live and let live' faith than some western religions. that's a good thing. i'm not trying to portray hinduism as a violent faith - it is not. but there is always some segment of a religion's population, that for whatever reason, becomes fanatical about it, becomes intolerant of other faiths, and may be violent in that regard. there have indeed been attacks on muslims by hindus - and on hindus by muslims. to suggest that it is only in 'one direction' - muslim on hindu - well, that's the sort of dismissal i'm talking about. it does no good.

Every cult has a God or Goddess around which its members build their beliefs and practices. Like many other countries, Indian society also has people adhering to such cults. But their actions can not be taken as sanctioned by the religion. Religion is well above these things.
there are and have been many christian cults too. there are ancients cults built around the virgin mary. some around specific interpretations of small sections of the bible. some are violent. some are not. in fact, most are not. but again - saying it isn't part of the 'sanctioned' religion is too easy a dismissal of the problem.

some links regarding hindu violence:

http://www.christiansoldiers.org/Pers020305.html

http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/buddhi ... d0105.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 70,00.html

i will reiterate: my intent is not to suggest that the hindu faith is violent, or to cast it in a bad light. my intent is to suggest that *all* religions have fanatical elements.

Also there is no term like infidels in Hinduism and there is nothing like killing infidels to achive glorious martyrdom. As far as Islam is concerned I have no credentials to explain why do they describe themselves as Islamic Jehadis. You have to seek this answer from Muslims.
i haven't suggested that hinduism has concepts such as infidels.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:11 pm

Dear Anastrophe,

I agree with you on many points. I am not trying to justify the inhuman acts of some Hindus who take shelter of religion to justify their wrong acts. I am totally against their actions. No body has any right to take away the life of any other human being or cause injury to him, physical or emotional. I am also not saying that only Muslims attack Hindus. Many times Hindus have also attacked Muslims. The only point I am trying to make is that based on the actions of few, the religion they belong to should not be blamed. I can not speak on behalf of other religions but in Hinduism there is no scope for such actions. Such actions are not a part of Hinduism. Tell me if a crime is committed in a churh should one start blaming the insitution of church for the crime.

Moreover, I am not trying to dismiss the problem by sayng that it has no sanction of the religion. The problem is there and it has to be adressed to find a solution. But the solution can never be found by blaming religion for causing it.

I hope you understand the point I am trying to make.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:05 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Dear Anastrophe,

I agree with you on many points. I am not trying to justify the inhuman acts of some Hindus who take shelter of religion to justify their wrong acts. I am totally against their actions. No body has any right to take away the life of any other human being or cause injury to him, physical or emotional. I am also not saying that only Muslims attack Hindus. Many times Hindus have also attacked Muslims. The only point I am trying to make is that based on the actions of few, the religion they belong to should not be blamed. I can not speak on behalf of other religions but in Hinduism there is no scope for such actions. Such actions are not a part of Hinduism. Tell me if a crime is committed in a churh should one start blaming the insitution of church for the crime.

Moreover, I am not trying to dismiss the problem by sayng that it has no sanction of the religion. The problem is there and it has to be adressed to find a solution. But the solution can never be found by blaming religion for causing it.

I hope you understand the point I am trying to make.
i do, and i'm in agreement on all of your points.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:15 pm

anastrophe wrote: i do, and i'm in agreement on all of your points.

Thanks, I appreciate your nice gesture.

starlight · Post by **starlight** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:12 pm

Any kind of violations of human rights will never be justified no matter how you want to put it. Not only is there a war in Afghanistan and Iraq which they been in a war way before we got there but there is a war going on in South Africa but nobody gives a crap about them because there is nothing they have that we want; right? To me, humans is humans no matter the color of your skin and where you were born. How can anyone justify a violation of human rights? That would be senseless and nonsense on anyone's part. Those are the one you could call an IDIOT.

Someone said that if we put someone who started on the front line of the war that it might solve the problem, well, the problem would be that it would mean to put the president on the front line of the war which I don't think that he would volunteer to do anytime soon. He is the one who started the whole BS and gotten many of the soldiers in their grave at an early age and year. I guess the president wants his name in the history just as many other idiot presidents did but President Bush would be #2 in history because the president (I can't remember his name) who started the Vietnam War would be #1.