What this person did seems quite sane...in the eyes of pure Islam. Some might even consider this his martyrdom operation.

As far as assaulting and killing him - wrong. Crimes of passion over the destruction of any idol should be below us. "Infidels" should be leading by example showing greater reverence for life than our ideological enemies.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at March 23, 2006 12:14 PM

This is back-to-front jihad - dahij?

Beating someone to death for smashing a statue is wrong, just as it would be wrong to kill someone for defacing a Koran, or drawing some cartoons.

Or am I missing something?

Posted by: Interested at March 23, 2006 12:21 PM

It's a horrible story. Another Hindu temple violated; another man dead.

I think it is important to notice exactly what the man did to bring down this frightful revenge on him. It will be easy for people to read this and say, "Oh, he was mad." Well, he may well have been. But, if so, why did his madness express itself in this particular form? Why did he do just this and not something else? It tells you something about his social surroundings, doesn't it?

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 23, 2006 12:21 PM

Hmmmm. Was the guy crazy? Had he been really bonkers, he would have tried to desecrate a Theravada Buddhist Wat instead of a Hindu temple.

Posted by: Kepha at March 23, 2006 12:23 PM

Why is what he did any more a reflection of "craziness" than the members of the Taliban, backed by the Saudis and other Arabs, who destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas? Or than all the Muslims, over the centuries, who destroyed tens of thousands of Hindu and Buddhist temples and artifacts, all over India and Afghanistan, and what remained as well of the Greco-Bactrian civilization that went back to the time of Alexander the Great?

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2006 12:25 PM

OT.

The Daily Ablution has a good roundup of which British papers told of - and which hid - the Hizb ut-Tahrir connection in the Shabina Begum case.

The Grauniad's coverage is ably fisked by Mr. Burgess. But he also notes that the so-called Independent was no better.

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2006/03/the_final_shabi.html

(For some reason I always have an urge to refer to the Independent as the "so-called Independent".)

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 23, 2006 12:35 PM

What the killing shows is that it is not simply about one statue, but rather about the ongoing Muslim conquest of Thailand, and the continuing pattern of abuse by Muslims against Hindus in India, Indonesia, and elsewhere.

In that light, it's easier to see where the attack on the statue would be taken as an act of war, rather than one of simple vandalism. So, while I agree with Quantum Infidel that any loss of life is unfortunate, the stakes are higher than what at face value may appear to be little more than an insult and destruction of property.

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 23, 2006 12:36 PM

No, it's just plain wrong to beat someone to death over a statue.

Yojimbo - thanks for the link. No surprises - The Times and The Telegraph do the right thing, and the so-called "Independent" and the loathsome Guardian don't.

Posted by: Interested at March 23, 2006 12:44 PM

Another crazy Muslim? Howcome when they get caught breaking something that doesn't belong to them, or get arrested for breaking the law, the excuse is always that they're mental?

Posted by: DCWatson at March 23, 2006 12:56 PM

Too bad they killed him. I think he was entering Yale in the fall. He was accepted when he finally finished remedial Koran class. But looks like his class project got him in a bit of trouble.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at March 23, 2006 1:14 PM

A tragic event. Maniacs of all stripes continually attack works of religious art. I remember the pieta being hammered by a madman. Can't blame this on Jihad. The planned, systematic destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas is an example of evil. This seems more like individual mania, though perhaps inflamed by what he heard at the mosque.

Posted by: MP at March 23, 2006 1:27 PM

If I witnessed a man destroy Michelangelo's Pieta, I couldn't kill him; I would be furious, but the life of a person is infinitely greater than any physical representation of God. Death as a punishment for destroying any material object is wrong regardless of any religious angle.

If we can't show restraint for the sake of life, how will anyone learn from our example (or at the very least take us seriously)?

Posted by: Jihad Watcher at March 23, 2006 1:36 PM

North Carolina or Thailand - its not the messenger its the message. The message of Jihad is innately appealing to criminals, megalomaniacs, sociopaths and psychos.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 23, 2006 1:42 PM

This story appeared a few days ago. I looked but could find no reference to the man's religion until now.

One could argue that the media and the "authorities" didn't have time to investigate yet and so couldn't ascertain his religion, but yet they were immediately ready at the very first report to pronounce a psychological diagnosis for the man. Maybe there was a psychiatrist on scene who was diagnosing him as he was being beaten to death, otherwise how would they know what his motivation and state of mind was? To my naive mind, I hear about a Muslim destroying the "pagan icons" of the "polytheists", and it sounds like just a run-of-the-mill hadith. Of course he was destroying their statue.

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 1:47 PM

We Jews are against idolatry but I'll take Hindu idolatry over Muslim idolatry any day of the week. And I have zero problem with Hindus because they are not conquerors and mostly tolerant to other religions. Any Hindu intolerance is NOTHING compared to the Muhammadans. India rates high on my list of nations.

Posted by: dennisw at March 23, 2006 1:57 PM

OT

Latest on the fertilizer-bomb trial in London

One witness's mother was in the WTC when it was hit and he still he aided al-Qaeda. What can one say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4835666.stm

It seems he is aiding the Crown with evidence now - out of self-interest, because he will gain immunity from prosecution.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 23, 2006 2:03 PM

So what is your point? The man was a mental case. A few months ago a crazy Jew terrorized a Christian Church in Israel. Was that the fault of Judaism?

An idealogue is basically a mono maniac who sees a single cause behind every event. I can see subtlties and nuances are not your strong suit.

It is quite laughabe that you guys(especially that Hugh felow) try so hard to paint all muslims as potential murderers by insisting that moderates are either lying or not "really" muslim. You insist that a "true" muslim must adhere to the most literal interpretation of the Quran. In other words, "true" muslim = fundamentalist BY DEFINITION. QED. Looks like you're setting up a strawman and beating it to death.

Any religion which has survived the test of time is more flexible than the verses on its "holy" books.It is modified (or perverted if you will) by traditions, different interpetations, etc. It lives on because it has become a screen on which belivers project their contemporary anxieties and concerns.In short, man creates "God" in his own image to a large degree. Religions(all religions) are hopelessly entangled with culture, society and politics. Most religious followers are not consistent in their religious beliefs.

Interesting, but not surprising, that many of you share the same one track mind of the Islamists whom you detest.You have more in common with your enemy than you realize.

The rise of radical Islam is a cause of concern and certainly worth understanding. But you guys are barking up the wrong tree.

Radical Islam is a fundamentally mordern phenomenon arises in the ME and the surrounding area. There are many political and social factors behind it, not the least the West's complicity in utterly destroying all healthy expressions of secular nationalism in the region for geo political interests,the mullah rose to fill the vacum as a result. For example, the CIA sposored a coup in Iran in 1953 to overthrow a democratically elected, secular regime. It then installed the Shah. By the time this tyrant has done with looting the country and destroying all secular oppositions, guess what force was left which was portent enough to depose him?

BTW, I am an athesist. IMO all religions are organised stupidity (especially the fundamentalist variety) so don't even try to pin me as an Islam apologist.

Posted by: browser at March 23, 2006 2:17 PM

"As they breed, we devolve. It must be so."

I disagree with this quote. I agree that we must defend ourselves from all threats, but killing someone because he destroyed a material object is not justified.

The saying that freedom isn't free doesn't just apply to soldiers in the military, it also applies to all people in a free society. It implies that we may have to suffer because of the nature of our society. We must take the higher road than those who strive to bring us down to their level. Taking the high road prevents us from devolving.

I admit taking the high road appears to be more of a defensive stance, but the people we are fighting against are not animals, they are still people (regardless of how they act or view us)

Posted by: Jihad Watcher at March 23, 2006 2:19 PM

As the Turks absorbed the Byzantine Empire, they took care to smash every statue they could lay their hands upon. Now they seek to exploit "their" Greek heritage to tourists in Ephesus and Smyrna. never underestimate the Moslem's gift for appropiration. Perhaps the word just hasn't settled into Thailand yet.

Most certainly, the smashing of the statue was an outrage, but property rights in this era ought not trump personal rights. The perpetrator deserved to be jailed or made to make restitution. But I for one am not going to act like a Moslem and call for his head. After all, I've got a little pride, y'know.

Posted by: Chatillon at March 23, 2006 2:23 PM

"And I have zero problem with Hindus because they are not conquerors and mostly tolerant to other religions"

BTW, Hindus may be tolerant of "other religions" but not much of some of their own. Many low cast Hindus in India converted to Islam as a way to escape their fate of life long abuses and servitude. Many were "Dalits" (the untouchables). I suspect many of us would have done the same under the circumstance.

Posted by: browser at March 23, 2006 2:28 PM

"1400yrs of Islam ,is modern?"

Islam 1000 years ago was not really that "radical" comparing to Christianity of that time. Beheading infidels was not that much more "radical" than burning heretics alive, don't you think?

Posted by: browser at March 23, 2006 2:37 PM

browser said

In other words, "true" muslim = fundamentalist BY DEFINITION. QED. Looks like you're setting up a strawman and beating it to death.

Ah yes, the violence of Islam is all in our minds. But why don't you take a trip to Mecca and then identify yourself as an atheist, and we'll see whose strawman is beaten to death.

Radical Islam is a fundamentally mordern phenomenon arises in the ME and the surrounding area.

And I see that history is not your strong suit. Take a few moments to read Robert's The P.I.G. to Islam (and the Crusades) or The Myth of Islamic Tolerance. Unless your definition of "modern" encompasses 1400 years and "surrounding area" includes the entire North and East coasts of Africa and Thailand/Indonesia/Northern Caucases/"Andalusia" etc. etc.

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 2:40 PM

"A mentally-ill Muslim smashed a landmark Hindu statue in central Bangkok"

I agree that it's more than coincidence that the manifestation of his illness was channelled into destruction towards "the other". Fundamentalist Islam IS a mental illness.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 23, 2006 2:40 PM

"As they breed, we devolve. It must be so. The only other choice is to surrender to Surrender, and that is not a humane option."

I don't believe we have to devolve to fight and win the jihad. Killing a dog and killing a person are not the same. Although I agree that neither of us will surrender to islam, I choose to fight in my way.

Peace to you APF

Posted by: Jihad Watcher at March 23, 2006 2:44 PM

"BTW, I am an athesist. IMO all religions are organised stupidity (especially the fundamentalist variety) so don't even try to pin me as an Islam apologist." -- browser

As an atheist you are marked for death in any society ruled by Islamic Sharia law.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 23, 2006 2:44 PM

Hugh:

there difference between the two examples you cite is that the case above is of an individual acting alone and, possibly very impulsively, vs. a "government" making a decision and importing engineers to carry out the deed -- a very conscious and premeditated act.

If the man could have been safely subdued and taken into custody, he should have been and, if found mentally competent, tried, convicted and incarcerated, or, if incompetent, as he may well have been given his history, institutionalized and drugged to keep him from acting out violently against staff and other patients.

We prove nothing of value by reducing ourselves to a level that we view with contempt if exhibited by others.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 23, 2006 2:45 PM

Peace to you APF

And to you. And may we somehow save ourselves from this monster named Surrender, the gravest threat mankind has ever faced in its 2.5 million year history.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 23, 2006 2:50 PM

There's a somewhat disturbing undercurrent of "blame the Muslim, whatever the scenario" in some of the comments in this thread.

The action of smashing a statue, however "important" it was and whatever his motivation may have been, cannot even begin to justify his heinous murder.

Further, if we fail to acknowledge this simple fact it portrays us in an unfavourable light, harms JW's credibility and undermines our position, thus furthering the aims of the global jihad. Ponder that, please! We need to be utterly above reproach on issues such as these.

Posted by: Null at March 23, 2006 2:51 PM

Well said, waterdragon.

Posted by: Null at March 23, 2006 2:54 PM

Killing the man on the spot was wrong IMHO, and illegal. But in infidel societies, the two men who beat the statue-smasher are under arrest and will face serious punishment.

Infidel societies are clear in their position on vigilantism and murder. We don't just put out some bland statements that "we oppose violence against innocent people everywhere", we actually punish the two men who did this.

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 2:55 PM

"why don't you take a trip to Mecca?"

As an athesist I am not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. But what is your point? Saudi Arabia is run by fundamntalists(backed by the U.S.A btw) with its own moribound way of interpreting Islam.Don't tell me the house of Saud goes back "1400 years".

"Take a few moments to read Robert's (books)"

Your point being? I never said historical Islam was a particularly "tolerant religion" by today's standard (I do agree that the "relogion of peace" bit is nonsense) But how about then, comparing to Christianity at THE SAME TIME? More recently, how did Christianity spread in South America? Through gentle persuasions?

I assume Robert's facts are correct(it is not difficult to do fact checking)But what is the context? He is no historian if he insinuates that muslims had a monopoly on barbarism and violence.

Posted by: browser at March 23, 2006 3:02 PM

patriot2: Yes, we are going to stop them. Yes, we are going to staunchly defend our freedoms. That's what JW is all about. We still live in democracies, and the majority need to understand the nature of the threat. This is the primary battleground. We need our voices to be heard - moreover, respected.

Posted by: Null at March 23, 2006 3:05 PM

Killing the man on the spot was wrong IMHO, and illegal. But in infidel societies, the two men who beat the statue-smasher are under arrest and will face serious punishment.

Infidel societies are clear in their position on vigilantism and murder. We don't just put out some bland statements that "we oppose violence against innocent people everywhere", we actually punish the two men who did this.

Absolutely. And a point worth making.

Further to that, there's an interesting article at Front Page Mag today on why the media tells lies about Israel. It emerges that one of the reasons is that they look for a drama that they can paint in vivid colours, but, for obvious reasons, they choose not to look in a place that is truly lawless.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21764

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 23, 2006 3:05 PM

"Radical Islam is a fundamentally mordern phenomenon" -- browser

Wrong. This is a key illusion for those who want so badly to claim that it's all relative, that all religions are the same in terms of their behavior today and throughout history. I am not religious either but it's crystal clear to me that all faiths are not morally equivalent in how they treat "the other".

Browser, if you are truly openminded, and not here simply to provoke and argue... Read: "The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims" by Andrew G Bostom

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 23, 2006 3:06 PM

I don't know if I made it clear enough in my initial posting that I certainly don't think the killing was justified, or even a proportional response; I also agree with later comments that it will be used against non-Muslims in general as tu quoque ammunition.

My point is that the real story is in the subtext of the article, not just this incident.

Posted by: Shinoliite at March 23, 2006 3:13 PM

browser said:

The man was a mental case. A few months ago a crazy Jew terrorized a Christian Church in Israel. Was that the fault of Judaism?

A bit of context regarding Islam in Thailand:

Buddhist Decapitated
Thai Muslim Leader Threatens Wider War
Jihadists Kill Seven in Thailand
Policemen Killed in Southern Thailand
More Buddhist Monks Killed in Thailand
Jihadists Kill Two in Southern Thailand
Policeman, Businessman Killed by Jihadists in Thailand
Elderly Buddhist Beheaded in Thailand
Buddhist Village Leader Beheaded in Revenge For Deaths of Muslims
Four Soldiers, Teacher Killed in Thailand
(and so on, I'm getting tired of cut-and-pasting)

Do you have a similar list of stories about Christians being killed and terrorized in Israel, to make your analogy work? The Thai's were not facing a single deranged man, they are facing a full-scale jihad.

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 3:18 PM

"The action of smashing a statue, however "important" it was and whatever his motivation may have been, cannot even begin to justify his heinous murder."

True, but the religious symbol smashing was in likelihood premeditated whereas the retaliation beating was spontaneous. I don't automatically buy the line that the 'vandal' was mentally ill (except maybe ill with Islam). That's what we were told about the S.U.V. assailant/wannabe murderer in North Carolina too but he seems pretty cogent in his subsequent recitations of Islamic justification for his action.

The smashing of this religious symbol in Bangkok did not happen in a vacuum. Islamic radicals in Thailand's southern provinces are engaged in horrific atrocities like the cutting off of heads etc. (as indicated for non-believers who resist Islam in the Koran). Obviously the cancer is spreading north.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 23, 2006 3:22 PM

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
--- Thomas Jefferson

The same man who invented the U.S. Navy in order to defend American merchant ships from beheadings and robberies done in the name of Allah. As our cannons blasted the sabre wielding Mohammedan thieves from the sea, sending them to drown in their suras, things calmed down and quality of life improved.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 23, 2006 3:29 PM

Unfortunately, gandugandi has just validated my point. Some of us are shooting ourselves in the foot here. A man has died; why can't we just condemn his murder and leave it at that?

There'll be another thread worth making substantive comments on along in a minute...

Posted by: Null at March 23, 2006 3:30 PM

Oh dear! Some of the comments on here do untold damge to Jihad Watch!!

So a group of religious fanatics kill a guy for damaging a lousy religious statue and this is GOOD?

If it had been the other way around you would be saying how barbaric the Muslims are!!

One spurt of religious barbarism is as unwelcome as another!
Hardline religious freaks killing people because their fantasy religion has been 'insulted' don't just come in the rotten, unwanted form of Islam but many rotten forms it seems.

Posted by: DaveyFreak at March 23, 2006 3:36 PM

Browser said

As an athesist I am not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. But what is your point?

Hmm. My point is that as an infidel, you would be summarily killed on the spot if found in Mecca. And it would be done, not because the Saudi Royal Family are extremists, but because the Islamic holy books say that it must be so. My point is that there is no other religion with this sort of rule. You will not be executed by the Christians for going to Bethlehem, you will not be executed by the Jews for going to Jerusalem, you will not be executed by the Hindus for going to the Ganges, and so on for Buddhists, Zoroastors, etc. etc. That is not a strawman argument, that is reality.

"Take a few moments to read Robert's (books)" Your point being?

My point being that it is not enough to come here and post "you all don't know what you're talking about, Islam is not all that bad". We talk about specific acts that are taking place, and you're responding with bland general statements. My point being that you are repeating tired old lines: "all the religions are pretty much alike", "all religions have their fanatics", "all religions are violent", etc. that Robert has already rebutted in detail. To just come here and repeat them, with no supporting facts to change our mind, will not lead to any sort of interesting conversation. If you were to read Robert's books (or Bostom's, etc.) and come here and explain in detail how they are wrong, with full supporting documentation, that would be interesting. (well, on second thought I cringe at remembering some of the "arguments" that have been raised here before by Islamic apologists. It has to be logical and coherent too, I guess).

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 3:38 PM

Quoting scriptures is futile, people have always been able to find ways to interprete religious text to justify their own agenda.

Which is really just a way of saying, "La, la, la, can't hear you."

To talk about "interpretation" is just to attempt to dodge the issue of what the Koran actually says. Try looking at the content of the Koran and thinking about what kind of a system it both expresses and legitimates:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Quran.htm

... if, as was said earlier, you are not just here to provoke.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 23, 2006 3:41 PM

browswer, I am all for secular humanism. Plus, you are correct that we can have an endless discussion/argument about which religion has inspired the most death and destruction in history.

So let's leave history alone for a minute. What is the situation TODAY. You agree that "Yes, Christianity is a lot tamer now." But isn't it the truth that not just Christianity but every religion in the world today is 'tamer', as you say, than Islam? Isn't Islam by far the major cause of murderous zealotry in the world today?
One can make all kinds of excuses for why this is so, but isn't it a fact? And does this fact not cry out for closer examination? And if such closer examination finds that such murderous zealotry is firmly embedded in the holy texts and traditions of Islam, is that not cause for even more fact-finding and raising of alarms? Many of us here are doing just that.

I regret that I must go now. I wish I could stay and discuss further.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 23, 2006 3:53 PM

Well said, DaveyFreak.

I have just reported this disgraceful thread to Robert.

Posted by: Null at March 23, 2006 3:54 PM

browser said

The examples you cited all have something to do with more "mundane" reasons such as enthnic rivaries, competition of resources, etc. I am not saying religion plays no role at all, but definitely not the main reason.

[to quote Yojimbo] Which is another way of saying "La la la la I can't hear you!"

...let me remind you that the Israelis have the biggest arsnel in the ME and a real army...The Irgan and Stern gang(Jewish militia in the pre state era) was also known to be mass murderes of civilians amd perpetrators of ethnic cleasning...

Ahh, I see where you're coming from. Have a nice day.

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 4:00 PM

"To talk about "interpretation" is just to attempt to dodge the issue of what the Koran actually says"

Are you to saying most Jews are fake Jews because they don't subscribe to the stoning of Shabath breakers and adulteres(along with a whole bunch of other crazy injunctions) as prescribed by the Laws of Moses?

That strikes me as preposterous and arrogant.

Posted by: browser at March 23, 2006 4:02 PM

Well said, DaveyFreak.

I have just reported this disgraceful thread to Robert.

Thank you, Null.

I agree it has become disgraceful. There have been some hateful comments about the man who was beaten to death.

Furthermore the disgusting anti-Semitic poster "browser" (currently posing as an atheist - though who knows who or what he is?) is now justifying suicide-bombing murder of Israelis.

Posted by: Yojimbo at March 23, 2006 4:02 PM

patriot2: I think Yojimbo just-about nailed it.

Posted by: Null at March 23, 2006 4:08 PM

I'm confused, patriot2, are implying that I am not disgraceful? That would really piss me off.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 23, 2006 4:09 PM

browser wrote "Christianity is a lot tamer now. But this is becuase the advance of secular humanisim has created a civic enviroment which transforms the religion itself. ...as man becomes more civilized his God also becomes less ugly. It has nothing to do with Christianity being intrinisically a more civilized religion."

I'll take the liberty of breaking his statements down:

1) Christianity is a lot tamer now... becuase the advance of secular humanisim has created a civic enviroment which transforms the religion itself.

2) as man becomes more civilized his God also becomes less ugly... has nothing to do with Christianity being intrinisically a more civilized religion.

In statement 1, browser is reporting a fact; in statement 2, browser is interpreting and/or amplifying that fact via an apparently ungrounded assertion: namely, that the "taming" of Christianity as a historical process had nothing to do with Christianity itself.

An equally plausible assertion one could make to counter browser's #2 would be that Christianity helped give birth to a new worldview that superceded it and "tamed" it. I.e., Christianity evolved and became better, and in the process modern secularism came about. To be sure, this evolution and maturation process didn't happen without a lot of internal strife in Western civilization; but birth pains are part of life. The pains and angry wounds of Islam, on the other hand, have always been, and continue to be mostly the result of a profound resistance to growth, to evolution, to maturation. The modern Western agnostic is, so to speak, the child of Christendom parents, to whom he owes filial respect and acknowledgement of influence on his values, but whom he nevertheless feels obliged to criticize and in certain respects condemn. That's a lot different than thinking modernity sprang out of the blue sky or out of some magic historical egg, with no historical antecedents, superior to the dark superstitious Christianity before the dawning of this New Age (or maybe its genes leapt over 10 centuries back to those comfortably pre-Christian Greeks and Romans?).

Furthermore, as the poster Archimedes has pointed out more than once, Islam differs in at least one key respect from Christianity: Islam's concept of holy war is directly and numerously enshrined in holy texts deemed to be the literal, unchanging truth of God without human mediation; Christianity's military behaviors in the past have, on the contrary, usually been in spite of its founding New Testament (which in the minds and laws of Christians superceded the Old Testament), not because of it. In Islam, there is no such dissonance between waging offensive wars in order to "defend" Islam from the existence of unrepentant Infidels and their founding holy text: there is in fact perfect harmony. As a consequence, Islam was bloodier and more barbaric than Christendom was, insofar as one appreciates degrees of violence. And what we seem to be facing now is the revival of an original Islam -- something ideologically and psychologically more galvanizing and dangerous to us than some "extremist" sectarian minority would be.

Posted by: Television at March 23, 2006 4:11 PM

Browser:

You conflate the many failures of Christianity (e.g. the Inquisition, the Albigensian Crusades, etc.) with the many successes of Islam (e.g. most recently our hero in the story above. Other examples presented on this website). It appears that in your view, social backwardness can be equally shared by all religions. Conversely, advancement is social standards and tolerance is to be attributed to the rise of secular humanism. Have I stated your position accurately?

If so, I'd like to ask: Where did this phenomenom, secular humanism, arise? Why did it arise there and not somewhere else? Is it just possible the underpinnings were in place, and through much turmoil were beginning to be appreciated for the practical sense they made? For instance, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's" clearly enunciates separation between Church and State and is congruent with the position of Western secular states. Whether one elects to follow the teachings of the author of this quote or not is a matter of one's own personal faith, not of compulsion.

Similarly, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," is less a call for vengeance than it is a call for fairness and balance in legal judgments. In other words, if a maniac breaks a statue, you do not kill him or cut off his hand and opposite foot. You make him contribute to the statue's restoration or perhaps incarcerate him. Such constraint in punishment is the principle underlying any workable legal system and the closest we poor mortals will come to justice this side of Jordan.

As you said, context is important.

Posted by: Chatillon at March 23, 2006 4:14 PM

patriot2: Sorry, I was vague. I don't actually read that into what browser said. The disgraceful comments, to my mind, have been those that have, at best, made light of this man's murder. Had Muslims bludgeoned a Hindu, I'm fairly sure that no such comments would have been made.

Posted by: Null at March 23, 2006 4:18 PM

Browser:

We are emphatically not a "bunch of fanatics".

Jihad ideology is now virtually mainstream. The totalitarian Islamist agenda poses a very real threat. The so-called demographic jihad is quite deliberate and almost omnipresent.

But it does appear that some of us, in our keenness to counter the hatred driving these ideologies, have allowed ourselves to become hateful towards their adherents.

This is a grave mistake, both morally and tactically.

Posted by: Null at March 23, 2006 4:31 PM

null said

This is a grave mistake, both morally and tactically.

I would disagree. This is what happens when a group (eg. Islam, Nazis, Communists) declare war on you. Some people respond thoughtfully and analytically, and some people start talking in hate about k*kes, j*ps, r*skies, etc.

It's not a grave mistake, it didn't stop us from winning WWII or the Cold War. It is distasteful and unproductive, and I'm sure Robert and Hugh and Rebecca do not approve of it, but it is hardly the most important issue regarding Islamic jihad. I'd say "knock it off, guys and gals", and move on.

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 4:47 PM

Quaere: is the destruction of a site holy to a belief-system other than Islam, if the work of a Muslim, necessarily the work of a Muslim who is to be defined as "crazy"?

If so, then all the Muslim "Palestinians" who who attacked repeatedly and finally caused to be crumbled into dust Joseph's Tomb, were mentally unstable. The Muslims who blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas, and those Muslim governments that apparently, it has come to light, supported them from outside (even if they later shed crocodile tears for the Western media), must have been mentally unstable. The destroyers of all those Hindu temples in Hindustan, or the Greco-Bactrian artifacts in Afghanistan, leaving in the latter case a handful of remnants to be mournfully on display in that melancholy Kabul Museum, must by the same flimsy reasoning have been unstable.

It is possible that the man who destroyed the Hindu god image was, by anyone's standards, "crazy."

But it is just as also possible that this business of his "craziness" has been exaggerated. For all we know, he may have suffered from intermittent depression but not to full-blown mental illness entitling us all to the soothing belief that he was, simply, crazy.

For a Muslim to destroy a Hindu god, a Jewish holy site, a Christian church, Buddhist statuary, it is not necessary for him to be "crazy." He need only be an "immoderate" rather than a "moderate" Muslim. Look at the texts. Look at the history, all 1350 years of it. Look at the inside of Hagia Sophia. Look at all the sites vandalized, or appropriated, or partly taken apart, or completely razed to the ground. There is too much evidence, over a very long period of time, over a very wide space, for it to be overlooked by all but the most sinister of apologists.

Or let's derive another meaning from the episode. All sorts of people, of every kind and every belief-system, suffer from depression during their lives. At any one time, it may be 10% of the population. And there are all kinds of other mental illnesses.

The problem for Infidels is this: when the person suffering from garden-variety depression, or horticultural-club night-blooming neurosis,is a Muslim, the rage of that person is unlikely to be turned on himself or on any number of possible "persons or things" to blame. It is most likely to be turned on Infidels, for they are to blame, they are the ones standing in the way of everything that is Good and True and Right.

And that's a big problem. That's a problem for which no one, as yet, has come with a solution. No Infidel, and no Muslim.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2006 4:53 PM

It's not a grave mistake, it didn't stop us from winning WWII or the Cold War.

Posted by: Null at March 23, 2006 5:07 PM

It was totally wrong to kill any person who destroyed this statue. but l think emotions are running high in that country, and people react very differently when they think they are fighting back at the very person who represents the evil, being the muslim man.
islam contraticts itself with idol worship, as bowing down towards Mecca which is a man made building is a form of idoltry.

Posted by: Lulu at March 23, 2006 5:16 PM

The ironically named Hammer_Time said

I don't automatically buy the line that the 'vandal' was mentally ill (except maybe ill with Islam). That's what we were told about the S.U.V. assailant/wannabe murderer in North Carolina too but he seems pretty cogent in his subsequent recitations of Islamic justification for his action.

I agree with you. If this man had lived, I have no reason to think he'd be any less able to explain his motivation than Moussaoui or Padilla or any of the other jihadists. He probably would have been able to quote the same Qur'anic verses. Hugh has restricted his analogies to Muslims who destroyed other religions' artifacts, but I don't think this man's actions show any more signs of mental illness than those who blow up pizzerias or buses or trains, or shoot passerby from the trunk of a car, or fly planes into buildings, or behead schoolgirls.

Like I said, maybe he was deranged, maybe not, but the police immediately diagnosed him as mentally ill, while it took several days of investigation to discover (or at least publish) his religious affiliation. Convenient.

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 5:21 PM

null said

In neither World War II nor the Cold War was the support of the American, British people etc in any doubt.

Not to get off-topic, and not to sound pedantic, but I think you might want to research the U.S. entry into WWII. There was alot of dissent and resistance to it getting involved. Here is a class outline from Yale that outlines the history and the opposition FDR had.

Once we were involved, it was a different story. But I would argue that while the jihadists have declared war on us, we have not truly declared war on them yet, notwithstanding the random Bush soundbite.

Like I said, I disagree with the hate, but it's not worth re-focusing the thread on that topic.

Posted by: special_guest at March 23, 2006 5:31 PM

The reason Islam is winning is that they take the war directly into our personal lives. Thus, civilized principles, polite behavior and high principles in our streets and classrooms could be the death of us.

This ain't a war; it's Jihad. Very different things. There are no front lines or tank divisions or or air squadrons or major battles in this war. Never use the inexplicable term Islamist, call 'em Moslems instead. Moslems are soldiers in our war with Surrender, the crime gang organized around a 20-year crime spree by a murderer and a thief.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 23, 2006 6:17 PM

I agree that we must defend ourselves from all threats, but killing someone because he destroyed a material object is not justified.
Posted by: JihadWatcher at March 23, 2006 02:19PM
-------------

At what point do you start protecting your property and the property of your country with lethal force??

After Islam destroys all of our power plants??

After Islam destroys all of our refineries??

After Islam destroys all of our churches and synagogues??

After Islam destroys your home??

After Islam kills you and rapes your wife, daughters and sons??

War is filthy and requires maximum effort to survive.

In Texas, we have the right to protect our lives and our property with lethal force. Try to destroy what I have and face the consequences.

Prepared, armed and ready.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 23, 2006 6:21 PM

He was in a mental institute for 10 years. I guess they cured him since he went back into default mode for a muslim. destruction and violence.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at March 23, 2006 7:09 PM

Why is it wrong for this man to die for what he did? Ok he's mentally ill. Thats fair enough. But Hate is not an illness. The event was too systematic to dismiss it as the acts of a madman.

Muslims only understand an eye for an eye. So be it. i doubt the Muslim would have been punished for it anyway.

Posted by: chu - doc at March 23, 2006 7:59 PM

I think a lot of 'browsers' to this site expect to find raving racists, brain-dead bigots, and hate-filled Christian hypocrites. For it seems like, invariably, the main argument against singling out Islam for the special attention/criticism it deserves, is that, 'hey, Christians have done the same thing throughout history too.'

But when pressed for contemporary examples they come up short. Some 20th Century examples of 'Christian Terrorism' given are: 1) Timothy McVeigh, 2) the Ku Klux Klan, 3:Hitler and the Nazis, and 4) the atom bombs dropped on Japan.

Working quickly through this list, the terror link to Christianity just doesn't hold up.

1) The Oklahoma bombing by McVeigh was terroristic alright, but in no way a Christian act. In fact it was in violation of all Christian teachings. Nor did McVeigh invoke Christ or God. He was a hate-filled loner taking revenge for what was done by the government at Waco. "But he was born Catholic" some say. That's bigoted.

2) The Ku Klux Klan did try to associate their terrorism with Christianity and is therefore the best argument for a Christian-Terror link. And the movement did have more than just a few followers. Plus they used a burning cross which is an explicit reference to Christianity. So yes, those Christians who belonged to the Klan, and went along with that hateful program, could fairly i think be termed Christian Terrorists.
But still the fact remains that they did so AGAINST the fundamental teachings of Christ. Nor did they achieve anything close to a majority of Christians in America approving their ideology or terror tactics. And the fact remains that Christians were the moving force behind the end of slavery, and that tens of thousands of white Christians died in the Civil War, in part to free the black slaves. In most areas of this country the Klan was always a shadowy menace at the fringe of society, never accepted or legitimate.

3) Hitler and the Nazis were not Christian in any way except that many of them started out that way, including Adolf himself. Again, as with McVeigh, Naziism was -- and still is -- a profoundly ANTI-Christian movement and message. Yes it did result in mass terrorism, and millions were killed as a result, but Christianity was definitely not the inspiration. The Nazis of course attempted to cleverly associate their movement with Christian ideals like preserving traditional values etc., but that was always a veneer to hide the real program of racial supremacy etc.

4) Atom bombs dropped on Japan. There was definitely racism involved, and many Christians went along with that racism. But I don't think that those bombings could be fairly described as "Terroristic", In open war, there is an implicit understanding that they are trying to kill you and your's, and vice-versa. Certainly it's terrifying to be bombed, atomic or otherwise, but in such a broad definition of the word then all war is terroristic. Terrible things happen in war. Would Japan have spared us the atom bomb(s) if they had come up with them first and had capability to use them? Certainly not. The most troubling thing in the use of those bombs on Japan is that civilians were targeted. But the sad truth is that civilians die in all wars and are targeted in most. Christians had no special involvement in developing or using the bomb. They are as guilty or innocent as anyone else in less one takes the stance that America is a Christian nation and as such Christianity is to blame for anything bad that Americans do as a nation, like the war in Iraq, etc. I don't subscribe to that view obviously.

As I've said, I am not religious, but I do respect most religions which are usually an expression of humankind's highest ideals and aspirations, and brotherhood(!)*

Islam also aspires of course, but not to tolerance and accepting others. It loves only Allah and heaps scorn on other ways and offers all kinds of terrible prescriptions in its holy book for how to deal with those who do not accept Allah and Islam. It is, in short, a Supremacist Faith which seeks to expand through any and all means available including (explicitly) ambush, deceit, and assassination. In today's word, Terrorism.

Yes, Non-believers can and always could avoid the full wrath of jealous Allah and his fanatical minions, but you'd need to sign up for complete lifetime slavery and submission first, to Islam. And woe be those who were doing just fine, thank you, with whatever beliefs they might have had before the Muslim armies came. And then, DEATH, DEATH, DEATH, all around. Submit or Die! That was what the Muslim Armies brought.

Christianity too has had some dark times to be sure, but nothing on the scale of what Islam wrought upon the people it has conquered and subjugated.

But even more to the point, and I can't say this with enough truth and passion: If Christians behaved in such a way today as we witness Muslims carrying on; threatening, bombing, rioting, and murdering in God's name... I would be nowhere near this brave, valuable site. No question about it: I would be a charter and contribuing member of "Crusade Watch"

Bigotry does not lead us here, or move us forward in this fight. Reality does. Most of us are reluctant warriors.

* Islam only respects the brotherhood of fellow Muslims.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 23, 2006 8:04 PM

This story deeply saddens me. Every time I go to Bangkok I stop by the beautiful park with the Erawan Brahma. I even have a small replica of it on my desk. Although I don't necessarily approve of killing this vandal, I'm doubtful that was really "mentally ill" as the article claims. He sounds like he was just a devout Muslim doingg what his religion teaches. It is Islam itself that is mentally ill.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 23, 2006 8:16 PM

Want an awakening and a good laugh.

www.crusadewatch.com

Posted by: Texican at March 23, 2006 8:19 PM

I should've known there would be a "Crusade Watch". Equating peaceful but persistant Christian missionaries to murderous Islamic jihadists is a pathetic stretch. I don't like door-to-door sales pitches either, but they're not lethal.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 24, 2006 12:48 AM

I have read the posts by Browser a few times. It is not what he posts but other people who criticize him, often in unfair and sometimes even derogatory way (“browsers of this site”) made me going.
First of all I could not find anything “anti-semitic”. I actually have got an impression he is Jewish.
Secondly, he is expressing his opinion (we all do) and in doing so seems to be courteous to others.

Television:
browser wrote "Christianity is a lot tamer now. But this is because the advance of secular humanisim has created a civic enviroment which transforms the religion itself. ...as man becomes more civilized his God also becomes less ugly. It has nothing to do with Christianity being intrinisically a more civilized religion."

To imply that Christianity in any way was instrumental in that transformation is to ignore every historical fact we have. The transformation has occurred not because of Christianity, but in spite of it.
Christian scriptures are not militant due to historical environment in which they were written. Militant scriptures would not be acceptable to Rome and could not survive.

And what we seem to be facing now is the revival of an original Islam -- something ideologically and psychologically more galvanizing and dangerous to us than some "extremist" sectarian minority would be.

I think you are talking about the same thing, that is what Browser called “modern” Islam and in that contest I agree with both of you.

...let me remind you that the Israelis have the biggest arsnel in the ME and a real army...The Irgan and Stern gang(Jewish militia in the pre state era) was also known to be mass murderes of civilians amd perpetrators of ethnic cleasning...
This is an historical fact and as all historical facts should be viewed not only as “What”, but also “Why”, but saying as special_gest did: “Ahh, I see where you're coming from. Have a nice day” is not an intelligent way of arguing.

Hammer_Time: …. “peaceful but persistent Christian missionaries”….
Have you eaten with any of them?

Posted by: pong at March 24, 2006 2:31 AM

BTW, Hindus may be tolerant of "other religions" but not much of some of their own. Many low cast Hindus in India converted to Islam as a way to escape their fate of life long abuses and servitude. Many were "Dalits" (the untouchables). I suspect many of us would have done the same under the circumstance. Posted by: browser

I don't know how that is relevant to Jihadwatch, but the Dalits converted to Buddhism, not Islam. Nothing wrong with any Hindu unhappy with his faith from switching to anything else, as long as that anything else is not Islam. There are several alternatives available in India - the only idiots who picked Islam were those in 19th century Bangladesh.

Even though the caste system originated in Hinduism, the caste problems that India currently has is a social, rather than a religious problem, and mirrors race relations in the US. In other words, just as race relations in the US is not a Christian issue, similarly caste relations in India is now more of a political, and to a lesser extent, a social issue. I won't go further into that since it is way off topic, but suffice it to say that caste roles are not scripturally codified in Hinduism in the same manner that Dhimmitude is in Islam.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 24, 2006 2:37 AM

While the killing of a person in retaliation for the destruction of a statue is high handed, I agree with Shinoliite - given the Jihadi campaign against Thailand over the last few years, a retaliation was needed against Muslims who would otherwise pick up where they left off in the middle ages from Malaysia and into Thailand.

The Thai are wonderful people. Nothing would be more heartbreaking than seeing them getting subdued by Islam. They need to crack down on their south, build up their military (which during their confrontation with Vietnam in Cambodia was pretty good) and read Malaysia the riot act.

OT: Although Brahma is the creator in the Hindu trinity, this is the first time I've read of him being worshipped, or even a statue to him. He rarely is.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 24, 2006 2:45 AM

I stayed at the Grand Hyatt Erawan last week. Every day I read in the Bangkok Post about (Muhammedan atrocities) in the south, too many incidents to make the world press.
I e-mailed the reports to JW, but even they didn't bother to post 'em anymore.

When I look above I see many posters writing lines like:

"It was totally wrong to kill any person who destroyed this statue..."

Why was it wrong? Because you are all too indoctrinated with PC? No, it was not wrong: This was the Thai-Buddhists, very peaceful people, on their home-turf, being attacked, seeing the very symbols of their belief destroyed by a fanatical Mohammedan. They killed him dead and rightly so.

You have a problem with that? That is exactly the problem we have in the west with Islam: We let them blow us up, we let them intimidate and blackmail us, we pay them Jiziya and we play the fool and we let them get away with murder. I promise you that it will be a while before another attacks the little Buddha shrine on the Erawan corner. But the West deserves everything that is has coming because of you all "civilized" spineless cowards....

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 24, 2006 7:03 AM

OT: Although Brahma is the creator in the Hindu trinity, this is the first time I've read of him being worshipped, or even a statue to him. He rarely is.

Brahma is also central to Buddhism i believe. He is protrayed as a do-gooder deluded spirit who thought that he had created the universe. In Hindi we have a proverb "Laatonke bhoot baaton say nahin manthe" which roughly translates as "Those who understand the language of fighting dont understand the language of reason" (hence you have to fight them).

Brutal retaliation is caveman mentality... yes... but so far has proved most effective.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at March 24, 2006 7:17 AM

But the West deserves everything that is has coming because of you all "civilized" spineless cowards....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 24, 2006 07:03 AM
============

Sheik Yer'Mami:
Not all civilized person are spineless cowards. Islam is in for a shock when it starts its war in America. Any Muslim roits in America will be short lived not as was allowed in France

===========
As aptly stated by Vikrant_Camberleykar:

Brutal retaliation is caveman mentality... yes... but so far has proved most effective.
===============

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 24, 2006 11:04 AM

sheik yer'mami:

They killed him dead and rightly so.

Yet, when a Muslim insults or "desecrates" the symbols of another religion, you consider it acceptable for the perpetrator to be killed.

Disgusting.

Posted by: Null at March 24, 2006 11:18 AM

Pong writes:

"I have read the posts by Browser a few times. It is not what he posts but other people who criticize him, often in unfair and sometimes even derogatory way (“browsers of this site”) made me going."

I'm not sure what you mean by "...made me going" but do you really think that my saying "I think a lot of 'browsers' to this site expect to find raving racists, brain-dead bigots, and hate-filled Christian hypocrites" was so terribly derogatory? If I wanted to attack browser personally I would have done so. I rarely make personal attacks. I was being dismissive of those who morally equate Christian with Muslim methods, both historically and today. Especially today (as i took pains to note). browser did state the following: "Islam 1000 years ago was not really that 'radical' comparing to Christianity of that time. Beheading infidels was not that much more "radical" than burning heretics alive, don't you think?" So he was making that kind of moral equivalence argument, to which he is completely entitled to. I am entitled to argue against such moral equivalence, and I did so.

Pong, you seem to share browser's antipathy towards at least the prostletyzing type of Christian when you write:

Hammer_Time: …. “peaceful but persistent Christian missionaries”….
Have you eaten with any of them?

And that's fine, but be explicit. Bring your prejudices (we all have prejudices so no I'm not being derogatory) out into the open so we can discuss them. I notice that you do not address ANY of my arguments for why 20th Century Christianity is not terroristic. It's ok if you do. I welcome it. I relish a good back and forth, especially if good arguments are being made.

By the way, did you happen to notice when I wrote: "I don't like door-to-door sales pitches either, but they're not lethal." Comparing Christian missionaries to 'door-to-door salesmen' is not exactly complimentary. It's at least as derogatory as what browser suffered by me, maybe more so. Again, I'm not Christian. I don't like religious expansionism regardless of who is expanding. But I think my distinction between peaceful and lethal persuasion is valid, especially nowadays.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 24, 2006 11:26 AM

Pong writes:

"I have read the posts by Browser a few times. It is not what he posts but other people who criticize him, often in unfair and sometimes even derogatory way (“browsers of this site”) made me going."

I'm not sure what you mean by "...made me going" but do you really think that my saying "I think a lot of 'browsers' to this site expect to find raving racists, brain-dead bigots, and hate-filled Christian hypocrites" was so terribly derogatory? If I wanted to attack browser personally I would have done so. I rarely make personal attacks. I was being dismissive of those who morally equate Christian with Muslim methods, both historically and today. Especially today (as i took pains to note). browser did state the following: "Islam 1000 years ago was not really that 'radical' comparing to Christianity of that time. Beheading infidels was not that much more "radical" than burning heretics alive, don't you think?" So he was making that kind of moral equivalence argument, to which he is completely entitled to. I am entitled to argue against such moral equivalence, and I did so.

Pong, you seem to share browser's antipathy towards at least the prostletyzing type of Christian when you write:

Hammer_Time: …. “peaceful but persistent Christian missionaries”….
Have you eaten with any of them?

And that's fine, but be explicit. Bring your prejudices (we all have prejudices so no I'm not being derogatory) out into the open so we can discuss them. I notice that you do not address ANY of my arguments for why 20th Century Christianity is not terroristic. It's ok if you do. I welcome it. I relish a good back and forth, especially if good arguments are being made.

By the way, did you happen to notice when I wrote: "I don't like door-to-door sales pitches either, but they're not lethal." Comparing Christian missionaries to 'door-to-door salesmen' is not exactly complimentary. It's at least as derogatory as what browser suffered by me, maybe more so. Again, I'm not Christian. I don't like religious expansionism regardless of who is expanding. But I think my distinction between peaceful and lethal persuasion is valid, especially nowadays.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 24, 2006 11:28 AM

The Texican wrote:

At what point do you start protecting your property and the property of your country with lethal force??
After Islam destroys all of our power plants??
After Islam destroys all of our refineries??
After Islam destroys all of our churches and synagogues??
After Islam destroys your home??
After Islam kills you and rapes your wife, daughters and sons??
War is filthy and requires maximum effort to survive.
In Texas, we have the right to protect our lives and our property with lethal force. Try to destroy what I have and face the consequences.

To answer your questions: We defend our lives, family and property when they are attacked; we should not condone the killing of a man for smashing a statue. If you condone the killing of this muslim, you already have submitted to a differnt kind of islam

Posted by: Jihad Watcher at March 24, 2006 11:31 AM

Apology for my double post above.

Null, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the retribution killing was the right thing to do. It wasn't. But the retribution was impassioned and spontaneous, versus the calculated, physically destructive act which brought on the retribution.

And let's be fair about this act of destruction versus some silly cartoon or insult. The man broke into that shrine in all likelihood with forthought and malice. He attacked and destroyed a sacred, treasure of another's faith, physically trespassing, violating, desecrating, and destroying as he went. This is, in my opinion, a much more grievous transgression than you and others here are making it out to be.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 24, 2006 11:42 AM

Hammer_Time: You are embellishing. Wouldn't it make more sense to only consider the known facts?

Posted by: Null at March 24, 2006 11:55 AM

There they go again, the apologists, the 'defenders' of Islam, the attempts to equalize and to quantify.

The 'what are we fighting for' mentality of the false and pretentious 'civilized' cowards who would tell us that the fight itself is wrong. No, these fools, the 'Null's' and whoever posts above calling himself 'Jihad watcher', they are the (PC) problem (or are you guys Mohammedan deflectors?) but they would have us believe, that it is wrong to fight for anything.

In fact, there are those people who would come home and see their daughter raped by an intruder, perhaps by a Mohammedan, and would ask him to 'please don't hurt her' and would call some psychiatrist to provide counseling (with an ongoing re-socialization program)since the perpetrator is always the victim for these fools, instead of grabbing the next frying pan or a crowbar to smash the skull of the crim.

I spit on these fools who stand for nothing, fight for nothing, code pink mentality people, who prefer to lie down like bitches instead of facing the enemy, only to turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. Yes, disgusting is the right word for these cowards. Too bad we have too many of them...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 24, 2006 12:55 PM

Null, please be specific. I stated that he "broke into that shrine in all likelihood with forthought and malice.".
The article says, (he)"broke into the shrine housing the four-faced statue of Brahma... in the early hours of the morning." To break and enter usually takes some forthought. Malice is proved by his destructive smashing.

I wrote, "He attacked and destroyed a sacred treasure of another's faith..."
True or false?

I wrote that he physically trespassed.
True or false?

I wrote that he desecrated and destroyed inside the shrine.
True or false?

I wrote that the retribution was spontaneous.
How could it be otherwise? Were the ones who retailiated just waiting for someone to break in and smash the statue?

So please, be specific, where am I embellishing?
I'll check back later in the day.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 24, 2006 1:00 PM

Sheik: I've made my case in good faith. You've rejected it, beaten various straw men and offered insults; as is your right. I'm not going to rise to your bait, as is mine.

Posted by: Null at March 24, 2006 1:14 PM

sheik yer'mami wrote

"The 'what are we fighting for' mentality of the false and pretentious 'civilized' cowards who would tell us that the fight itself is wrong. No, these fools, the 'Null's' and whoever posts above calling himself 'Jihad watcher', they are the (PC) problem (or are you guys Mohammedan deflectors?) but they would have us believe, that it is wrong to fight for anything."

The fight against islam is massive and poorly understood; I believe this is what we can agree on. I believe in fighting against islam by using force (to include killing an aggressor) IF the immediate attack threatened someone's life. I do not, however, condone the killing of the muslim man in the above article since the muslim man was attacking an inanimate object.

Call me a coward if you want (I am a Catholic and am used to the receiving end of ignorant name calling), but I believe that justice trumps blind rage.

In your hate for islam you sound like the muslims calling for Mr Rahman blood. Or would you prefer him to die since he used to be a muslim anyway?

Posted by: Jihad Watcher at March 24, 2006 1:22 PM

Hammer_Time: Look again at the words and phrases you used, and the picture they paint: malice, sacred treasure of another's faith, violating, desecrating, grievous transgression etc. The man is now dead, so we cannot be sure of his motivation. You may or may not be correct, but the picture you painted goes beyond the known facts, and intentionally or not is therefore embellishment.

Posted by: Null at March 24, 2006 2:04 PM

"And you are telling me it is wrong to kill them first?"

Yes. It is wrong to kill a muslim just because they are muslim. It is also wrong to kill a muslim because we are pretty sure he will kill someone. There are alternatives to killing

"Why do you find it 'acceptable being killed' when you tear up a Koran or go into a mosque with a cartoon T-shirt and piss on the floor?"

I don't know where this came from nor do I understand what you are trying to say, but it's wrong for people to be killed because they do vile things in sacred places (although 'vile' and 'sacred' vary from person to person)

"This case was not a simple attack on 'some inanimate object"

If someone (muslim or otherwise) blew up the entire Vatican, but no one was hurt, I would have the same opinion: Find the guilty parties and bring them to court. We should not kill them where they stand.

"You have to open your eyes a little wider"

Thanks for trying to get the splinter out of my eye... make sure to check yours

Posted by: Jihad Watcher at March 24, 2006 2:35 PM

The 'Jihad watcher' poster above is a liar and a fraud:

"It is wrong to kill a muslim just because they are muslim. It is also wrong to kill a muslim because we are pretty sure he will kill someone. There are alternatives to killing..."

That is not the issue here. Neither did I state that 'Muslims should be killed because they are Muslims'. You deflect away from the issue in order to turn the perpetrator into a victim; which he is not.

The desecration of the Thai religious objects for them is the same as when a Jihadi rapes your daughter or cuts your wife's throat in the name of Allah. It is the same as the guy breaking into your home, smashing all your favorite stuff and shitting on your carpet on the way out. You are the one who condones that and makes us pay for the 're-socialization' of such creeps instead of taking a gun in your hand.
Your Vatican statement above is plain idiocy and surrender before the fight. And you call yourself a 'Catholic?'

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 24, 2006 8:29 PM

Texican: This is off topic but did you know that the Texan flag, The Lone Star, was designed by a Dane? His name was Charles Zanco and he died in the battle of the Alamo:
Posted by: odin, king of gods at March 24, 2006 11:55 AM
-------------

Thanks Odin did not know that. Was interesting reading.

The Texican.

Posted by: Texican at March 24, 2006 8:40 PM

We defend our lives, family and property when they are attacked; we should not condone the killing of a man for smashing a statue. If you condone the killing of this muslim, you already have submitted to a differnt kind of islam
Posted by: Jihad Watcher at March 24,2006 11:31AM
------------------

Jihad Watcher, high morals and ideals will get you killed. Wake up and realize that we are in a war with Islam for our very survival and you want to play nice to those that intend on destroying your country and killing you.

Islam intends on defeating the world a little bit at a time starting with non-muslim holy sites.

If Islam wins, you will either convert or be murdered and your wife, daughters and sons will be raped repeatedly then murder in the glory of Islam.

Islam and its vile and evil followers have no peace or empathy for the rest of the world and the rest of the world is starting to return the same sentiments.

The world has reached its boiling point with murders committed by muslims and muslims destroying our homes, statues, holy sites, shrines temples and churches.

We are in war for our very survival with Islam. We will win this war by killing sufficient muslims that Islam will cease to exist.

So a muslim was killed for destroying a statue. This is one less enemy.

I intend on warring so that my family, religion and country survives this bloody onslaught by Islam. I will see this through to the end.

Prepared armed and ready.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at March 24, 2006 9:07 PM

Sheikh Yermani, Texican and Hammer Time are right. While in absolute ethical terms it may not be right to kill someone who merely destroys property, the consequence of such charitable behavior throughout Islamic history has been us Infidels being mistaken for weak, and later on getting our heads handed to us on a platter. This is similar to the US and coalition doing what they could to minimize collateral damage in Afghanistan and Iraq: all it did was make it easier for the Jihadists to hide amongst the wouldn't-be collateral damage, and instead inflict damage of their own.

Did the Mohammedan "lunatic" (who knows that?) deserve to die? Maybe, maybe not. But like Sheikh pointed out, the next time the Mohammedans want to pull off a stunt like that, they should keep in mind that there are 72 raisins waiting to be handed over to them.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 24, 2006 10:52 PM

Texican:

We are in war for our very survival with Islam. We will win this war by killing sufficient muslims that Islam will cease to exist.

Posted by: Null at March 25, 2006 12:01 AM

The only evidence we have from the article is that this Muslim was beat up for smashing a religious statue. Was it manslaughter or murder? This was heat of the moment. These men saw the statue getting destroyed, so they got angry and apparently beat the guy up. This looks like manslaughter, or at least we don't have evidence that they intended to kill this guy.

I think it's not out of the question for someone to get roughed up a bit for deliberately smashing a revered religious symbol. Indeed, any security guard in a museum would have had to handle such an intruder physically. If the intruder puts up a struggle and counterattacks, the security guard may need to use greater force to subdue the intruder, and this could result in the intruder's death.

I don't think murder of someone for breaking a religious statue (which can be repaired and replaced) is justified. But I see no proof that this was murder.

One of the things that distinguishes us from the enemy today is precisely that we don't kill people for attacking religious symbols. They do. We don't. We only kill when it's necessary to defend human life; religious beliefs should be defended through debate, not force.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 25, 2006 12:26 AM

...and this looks like manslaughter, excessive use of force, but not murder. Of course, the man's death is not justified, and those who used excessive force should be charged.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 25, 2006 12:34 AM

Archimedes: Valid point. In fact, the report said that he was unconscious but still alive when police arrived. So my and others' references to murder may well be mistaken.

Posted by: Null at March 25, 2006 1:04 AM

Archimedes:

One of the things that distinguishes us from the enemy today is precisely that we don't kill people for attacking religious symbols. They do. We don't.

Posted by: Null at March 25, 2006 1:12 AM

Texican:
We are in war for our very survival with Islam. We will win this war by killing sufficient muslims that Islam will cease to exist.
Unbelievable. I have again contacted Robert, updating him on this thread.
Posted by: Null at March 25, 2006 12:01 AM
-----------------

Null:

Look at the tens of thousands of the graves of innocents across the world murdered by Muslims due to Islam's hate of all other religions and decide if you want to move to the Middle East and borker peace with Islam. Go to it.

If you think that Islam is going to surrender and change it ways due to words and reason, you will be destroyed by Islam.

Islam has not changed in 1300 years and will not change in the next few years unless driven into submission.

There will never be peace with Islam for Islam has no desire for peace.

We are in a war Islam and in all wars the victor defeats the other side by killing and destroying the enemy until they are utterly destroyed. Happened in Nazi Germany and in Japan. War is filthy and people are killed in war.

This war was started by Islam aganist the western civilizations. We either fight this war to win or we will fail and Islam will rule.

I will never live under the oppression of Islam.

I have made my choice my.

Freedom.

Have you decided??

The Texican.

Posted by: Texican at March 25, 2006 1:27 AM

Enough; I'm not achieving anything here. See you in another thread.

Posted by: Null at March 25, 2006 6:49 AM

sheik yer'mami wrote:
"This was the Thai-Buddhists, very peaceful people, on their home-turf, being attacked, seeing the very symbols of their belief destroyed by a fanatical Mohammedan. They killed him dead and rightly so"

Well said! While I don't "approve" of killing the vandal, were I on the Thai jury that tries his killers, I would vote to find them not guilt. I expect they will both be acquitted anyway and be considered heroes by many Thais who considered the Erawan Brahma a bringer of good fortune.

Posted by: Provoslavni at March 25, 2006 12:28 PM

I see this debate is still continuing after several days. Some of you may find the following exchange between Laurence Auster and an Indian correspondent of interest:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003862.html

Excerpt from the exchange (from the Hindu correspondent) worth pondering:

"I have always wanted to write about this to you. How is it that India has a massive Muslim population and yet manages to get along with relative calm? Many leftists/liberals in the West could misuse that example to say: “Look, Muslims aren’t trouble. India has 150 million Muslims!”. The way peace is maintained in India is by fear of mob fury. Muslims in India are generally peaceful because they know that if they stretch the limits of Hindu tolerance and kill people, Hindu mobs would descend upon them with a fury that would kill many more Muslims. This is fundamentally the way in which peace in a relative sense is maintained in India – by fear of violent retribution. A good example is a Muslim attack on a train of Hindu pilgrims in 2002. They burnt 50 Hindu women and children alive. Inevitably, in retaliation, violent Hindu mobs killed 2000 Muslims.

It is barbaric and it is brutal. The mentality that we witness is from the age of barbarism. But that is how peace is actually maintained. I have a feeling that if Hindus were more “civilized” like Westerners and played everything by the book, the Muslims would probably run riot with no end in sight. They don’t because they know that the majority could turn blood-thirsty at any moment. And so relative peace is maintained.

I wonder how Western liberals would react if they were told that the price of peace in a country with a large Muslim minority is to have a barbaric mindset which vindicates mindless slaughter of innocents – failing which peace would not be possible. They would probably reject it as a “fantasy” of “fascists” and never take it seriously."

Well I don't think its a fantasy and I think it behooves us all to recognize that there is still one way to prevent the descent of the entire world into barbarism - STOP ALL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION TO THE WEST.

Posted by: Caroline at March 25, 2006 7:13 PM

Caroline

I read the link you referenced. I agree with everything the Indian correspondent said, except for the characterization of the partition as the holocaust. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this site, that word deserves to be reserved for the military campaigns of Muslim conquerors of India between the years 1000AD to 1761AD that slaughtered between 100-150m infidels (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, etc.)

The interesting thing I noted about it was the observations on Gandhi. In both India and outside, it is politically correct to grovel before his name, but he was essentially the Neville Chamberlain of India - while he did what he could to make sure that Hindus turned the other cheek (with far bloodier results), he did absolutely nothing to stop Muslims from attacking Hindus. That plus a number of concessions that he blackmailed (through his hunger strikes euphemistically described as fasts) the Indian government to give not only Muslims, but Pakistan as well - this was what led to his (imo) timely assassination (a tough thing for me to say, since I normally don't favor murder as a political solution, but in this case, there was no alternative).

What you describe above sounds like the citizen equivalence of what in international affairs has been military deterrence. Just as the US needed to show that it was capable of using force vis a vis the Soviets, and just as its war in Afghanistan and Iraq silenced the 'Arab Street', similarly, people who react with a violent vindictiveness towards any sign of aggression against them are more likely to see a well behaved Muslim minority.

Similarly, by beating the crap out of the 'deranged' Muslim who destroyed a Brahma statue, Thais wittingly or unwittingly sent Muslims a signal that any more of these, and heads would roll. What's now needed is for the Thai to reclaim their southern territory by cracking down on Muslim separatists. One of their past Prime Ministers (I forget his name) did crack down on Muslims in a big way. Thailand needs someone like him again.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 26, 2006 4:24 AM