Buddhism and war

ReX wrote:

At what point was saddam a threat to the US?

When he tried to poison the US senate office building with anthrax, for starters...

0 Replies

Um...swolf, there is no evidence that Saddam was responsible for that. As a matter of fact, the evidence shows it has a more domestic origin. And by "the flood" are you refering to Noah and the Ark? Hahahah! You mean there was no war prior to "the flood"? I am a Buddhist and not a Christian but as I recall from my early Christian days, the flood occured because God was pissed off at humanity for being evil. "The flood" created war? I don't get it.

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

Um...swolf, there is no evidence that Saddam was responsible for that. As a matter of fact, the evidence shows it has a more domestic origin.

Sorry, but that's REAL wrong.

I mean, you either believe in the laws of probability or (like the evolutionists) you don't. I believe in them.

What are the chances of the first anthrax cases turning up days after 9-11 in the same neighborhood in Florida that Atta and co. were living in? I mean, chances of having them turn up in the same STATE aren't better than one in fifty.

Again, of the states and agencies which the 9-11 terrorists had contact with, Iraq is the one which specialized in weapons-grade anthrax.

The government has been at pains to avoid connecting Iraq with the anthrax attacks, primarily because we should have gone after Iraq the next morning and we weren't able to because of the condition which Slick Clinton had left our military in. Nobody wants to admit to that.

Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" documents some of this:

Quote:

'Cheney?s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, quickly questions the wisdom of mentioning state sponsorship. Tenet, sensitive to the politics of Capitol Hill and the news media, terminates any discussion of state sponsorship with the clear statement: "I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor."

'Vice President Cheney further drives the point home: "It's good that we don't, because we're not ready to do anything about it."

Aside from national assets like the Grand Staircase, Clinton had been selling off military stocks. Ordinary simple things like machinegun barrels which we should have warehouses full of, simply weren't there.

As to the anthrax case, I'd recommend the following:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/13/183200.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/15/172539.shtml

0 Replies

NickFun wrote:

And by "the flood" are you refering to Noah and the Ark? Hahahah! You mean there was no war prior to "the flood"? I am a Buddhist and not a Christian but as I recall from my early Christian days, the flood occured because God was pissed off at humanity for being evil. "The flood" created war? I don't get it.

The flood occurred because of bad luck, which is something which the authors of the bible did not understand at the time. Those guys believed in causality, and assumed that God was the cause of most if not all things.

Julian Jaynes mentioned ("Origin of Consciousness") warfare being something which arose after the (his term) 'bicameral' societies passed away
and Richard Heinberg's "Paradise" describes the traditions of antediluvian society; warfare wasn't one of them. There actually are ruins of very ancient cities with no defensive fortifications or other signs of military adaptation.

0 Replies

One other little thing I should point out, the one American scientist who was originally suspected in the anthrax attacks told investigators that, basically, if he were stupid enough to have been doing that $#!t, then he would either be dying of anthrax as they spoke, or he would have the serum antibodies in his blood, and he offered to take a blood test on the spot, either at their (the investigators') facilities or at facilities which he himself was familiar with.

That, of course, was altogether unanswerable.

No other American suspect, to my knowledge, has turned up. In my estimation, any American involved in that one would have either turned up dead from anthrax in some recognizable fashion, or would be incustody by now.

0 Replies

wouldn't it be nice if humanity were to realize that something's being 'natural' does not confer on it any vestage of value, or sanity.
"War is 'natural' " only because survival is a 'savagely' obtained goal, won at the expense of all other competitors.
Religious belief, any religious belief, serves only to fan the flames of the prehistoric urges that have driven humanity for millenia.
Modern Budhism might be considered as the light at the end of that tunnel; but it is still confined to the tunnel!

0 Replies

Re: Couldn't be more Wrong

MichaelAllen wrote:

Quit being so full of yourself that I have to puke every time you type. Without me, you would have been run over a long time ago and I'm tired of hearing how much you hate people like me. Go get a grip.

It's like the meat eating person who can't stand the fact that someone else has to make the kill. Get over it and eat what I give you, because if you aren't man enough, don't put me down.

Michael, this wasn't even addressed to me but with all due respect get a grip and lose your savior complex.

Edit: the whole "I derive my manliness from militarism" thing is just pathetic.

0 Replies

Asherman: I like your point of view and your believes.
However:
"Despotic governments have existed in almost every one of the nations that make up the region.", please do not refer to despotic governments as an intrinsically bad thing. They remain the economically best model, it is however hard to find a dictator that doesn't abuse it's powers. But we see 'elected' presidents elsewhere doing the same.
"Bush could have done the popular thing, the easy thing and ignored Saddam a little longer. The result would have been more terrorist actions against Israel sponsored and paid for by Iraq." And Bush keeps sponsoring (israel) terrorism upon arab countries. Why did he not attack greater threats like North-Korea? The weapons inspectors (Hans) said that Iraq was dismantled from all the weapons the US gave them.
"Unfortunately, the French, Germans and Russians (all of whom had reason to keep saddam in power)". Please clarify.
"During the Gulf War, Bin Ladin became overtly anti-American and vowed to expel U.S. forces from the region, especially Saudi Arabia." You seem to know more about it than I do. I won't fight you on this, because this is the first I've heard of it. And frankly, I haven't researched any of this. But as far as I was aware, Saddam hates Bin Laden and Vice Versa.
"Some Americans seem to prefer trusting the statements of our declared enemies rather than the elected and appointed leaders of our own country." I hope you're using the term 'elected' loosely and let's face it. Bush could occupy himself a little less with foreign policy and a little more with JOBS for americans.
I agree with everything else you've said.

0 Replies

Singapore is a good example of a dictatorship that is used to improve the people standard of living.

0 Replies

Your first post, you must be so proud Smile

Welcome c0w, I hope you enjoy your stay. I'm sure you'll learn a lot and will try REALLY hard to remain as polite and succinct as you have been so far :p
Wink

0 Replies

"Hatred will not cease by hatred, but by love alone.
This is the ancient law."

0 Replies

Yes true enough (singapore).. However commentators debate whether Singapore is a true dictatorship as it runs elections and has a popular voted president. Unlike China, Singapore values the arts, religion, and democracy. For example all religions and demoninations are allowed to practice freely and are not subject to the stringent conditions placed upon them such as China or the old Russia.

Yes in many mays Singapore has a socialist idiology but it has not been at the expense of free enterprise and small buisness. Because of this balance Singapore has become one of the most prosperous of asian countries and is ranked 11th in the world for standard of living

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I am interested to know more about Buddhist beliefs about war. There (as far as anyone knows) has always been war in the world, which leads me to believe that it is a "natural" state. If, as a collective people, we are always at war, and we are all connected, then how can Buddhism be . . . well, I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we are all connected somehow, then wouldn't Buddhists also be indirectly responsible for war?

A person studying buddhism will sooner or later realize that the war he wages in the world is a manifestation of the war raging in his heart. The worldly battle can last forever without end, since our enemies are manifestations of our fears. Conquer your fears, and you will have peace in your heart. Find peace in your heart and you will have ended your war in the world once and for all.

0 Replies

Thats pretty cool, Cyracuz

0 Replies

Thanks amigo. Smile

0 Replies

You should be a Buddhist Cyracuz!

0 Replies

NickFun

I do not consider myself a Buddhist since I'm not a member of any Buddhist community, even though I embrace the philosophy with my whole being.
It is the only way I know of to contemplate the mind without putting it up against some exterior illusion and thereby muddling up everything so that I don't know what is mind and what's matter.

0 Replies

What's in a name? Does a strawberry taste differently if called an onion?

It isn't necessary to "belong" to a community composed of "Buddhists" to be a Buddhist. Practice the Precepts, prefer the Middle Way, make of your life a continuous focused meditation and your are a Buddhist, even if the world labels you something else. Words and names far too often come to have a greater emotional prominence than the thing, or concept that they are intended to communicate.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

What's in a name? Does a strawberry taste differently if called an onion?

It isn't necessary to "belong" to a community composed of "Buddhists" to be a Buddhist. Practice the Precepts, prefer the Middle Way, make of your life a continuous focused meditation and your are a Buddhist, even if the world labels you something else. Words and names far too often come to have a greater emotional prominence than the thing, or concept that they are intended to communicate.

and don't forget to wear the robe.

0 Replies

Well, if it's the way Asherman says, and I do not doubt that it is, then I am a buddhist. Or becoming one.

0 Replies

Buddhism and war

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know