Islam and Cardiovascular Science

[S.A.M.]

Terrible to watch? No, it's fun ...idiotic Iraqis blowing up their fellow men and women? Hell, that's lots more fun than some of the new video games!



Yep, there was nothing but peace and tranquility, milk and honey, before the west arrived. ...LOL! You don't know history very well do you, SAM?

Baron Max

Compared to whats going on now? Yup there was.

 

[Baron Max]

Compared to whats going on now? Yup there was.

Yeah, now the Iraqis are killing more Iraqis ....just like the old days of glory in the Middle East, huh? ...LOL!

I still like that approach ....if an invader storms into your country, then kill as many of your fellow citizens as possible until the invader decides to leave. Excellent tactic for fighting invasion, don't you think?

Baron Max

 

[Bells]

Is that why there has been an international hullabaloo over the destruction of Babylon?

Who said there wasn't a "hullabaloo"? If there wasn't, the US would not have shifted and moved the heavy machinery that were destroying the site now would they. But lets have a quick look at their set up there in the first place:

Lieutenant Colonel Steven Boylan, a US military spokes man in Baghdad, said engineering works at the camp were discussed with the head of the Babylon museum. "An archaeologist examined every construction initiative for its impact on historical ruins."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0115-07.htm

Hmmm.. interesting isn't it?

The people of Australia did not have much to say when they were stealing the children of aborigines.

Many did. And many did not. Doesn't mean we excuse it today or try to pass it off. The stolen generation is a blight on the history of Australia. The vast majority of the population knows it and doesn't try to excuse it as anything but a blight.

I guess now that the "progressive" nations have completed the genocide and destruction of their own heritage they feel compelled to direct everyone elses

Yep. Pretty much. Just as you attempt to direct or comment on ours, we will respond in kind.

Too bad, stuff happens. Everyone is entitled to make their own choices. The Babri Masjid was blown up, we got over it. No Buddhists are weeping for the statues. The 2600 year old bricks of Babylon are gone, crushed under the US military tanks.

And directed and watched by an archaeologist from the Babylon museum. And here's the thing. We know we did wrong. And we know we can't get over it because it is irreplaceable.

Get over it. The people of Afghanistan have more immediate issues than some old statues that no one knew of before they were blown up.

Indeed. Those "old statues" could have proven themselves to be a virtual gold mine to tourists in the future. But now they are just holes in a wall. Shame that, heh?

No one knew of them? Righteo.

The two most prominent statues were the giant, standing Buddhas Vairocana and Sakyamuni, measuring 55 and 37 metres (180 and 121 feet) high respectively, the largest examples of standing Buddha carvings in the world. They were perhaps the most famous cultural landmarks of the region and the site was listed by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site along with the surrounding cultural landscape and archaeological remains of the Bamyan Valley. The statues represented the immense architectural skill of the Indian civilization as well as the promotion of such arts before being destroyed by Islamic forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

Yeah, we'll just stick with that and hope no one brings up the fact that they were considered of so important that they were listed by the World Heritage Site.

Oops, too late.

 

[S.A.M.]

Still waiting for your input on when Iraqis were killing Iraqis to this extent before the west came in.

 

[Bells]

Oh well that makes it alright then. I'm sure if you were to lose your family, you'd be glad that they at least restored the artifacts.

So you complain that they destroyed them and then complain that they're trying to restore and return what was stolen by looters and sold off? Okay then. Glad we cleared that up.

Still waiting for your input on when Iraqis were killing Iraqis to this extent before the west came in.

Who me?

 

[S.A.M.]

Who said there wasn't a "hullabaloo"? If there wasn't, the US would not have shifted and moved the heavy machinery that were destroying the site now would they. But lets have a quick look at their set up there in the first place:

Hmmm.. interesting isn't it?

Many did. And many did not. Doesn't mean we excuse it today or try to pass it off. The stolen generation is a blight on the history of Australia. The vast majority of the population knows it and doesn't try to excuse it as anything but a blight.

Yep. Pretty much. Just as you attempt to direct or comment on ours, we will respond in kind.


And directed and watched by an archaeologist from the Babylon museum. And here's the thing. We know we did wrong. And we know we can't get over it because it is irreplaceable.


Indeed. Those "old statues" could have proven themselves to be a virtual gold mine to tourists in the future. But now they are just holes in a wall. Shame that, heh?

No one knew of them? Righteo.

Yeah, we'll just stick with that and hope no one brings up the fact that they were considered of so important that they were listed by the World Heritage Site.

Oops, too late.

I suggest you read the Oxford papers on Babylon for US military actions there. Or any consensus statement by archaeologists.

As for me, given a choice between saving lives and saving stones, I am more interested in saving lives. Stones are interesting only when people are alive to look at them. So while its all very laudatory that the Americans are spending so much money on saving archaeological sites, the fact that they thought 500,000 children dead under the age of five were worth it and a million dead and two countries destroyed are legitimate, puts me on some other planet with different priorities.

You won't find me getting excited over a few old statues, I'm afraid.

 

[John99]

If after getting rid of Saddam, Iraq instituted a leader elected\chosen by the people to support the will and rights of the peopple of Iraq (who chose him\her) and the violence ended there we would not be discussing this and tbh Saddam was a dictator.

Why would people here support a dictator? They dont even live in dictatorships themselves. Peopel are their own worst enemies and dictators know this.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why would people here support a dictator?

They dont even live in dictatorships themselves.

You tell me. Why would people who don't live in a dictatorship support dictators and kings and consider elected representatives as terorrists?

Its a mystery to me too.

 

[John99]

Perhaps people should not do anything and let the elite shit on poor people and criminals keep them living in fear. We see this all over the world and when someone tries to change it they get attacked from all sides. So i guess this is life.

 

[Bells]

I suggest you read the Oxford papers on Babylon for US military actions there. Or any consensus statement by archaeologists.

As for me, given a choice between saving lives and saving stones, I am more interested in saving lives. Stones are interesting only when people are alive to look at them. So while its all very laudatory that the Americans are spending so much money on saving archaeological sites, the fact that they thought 500,000 children dead under the age of five were worth it and a million dead and two countries destroyed are legitimate, puts me on some other planet with different priorities.

You won't find me getting excited over a few old statues, I'm afraid.

I view the loss of both to be a tragedy.

 

[Baron Max]

.... So while its all very laudatory that the Americans are spending so much money on saving archaeological sites, the fact that they thought 500,000 children dead under the age of five were worth it and a million dead and two countries destroyed are legitimate, puts me on some other planet with different priorities. ...

What?! ...LOL! From what dark hole did you pull those numbers, SAM?!

Hell, why didn't you just use "billions" instead ...wouldn't it have had more impact?? ...LOL!

Baron Max

 

[Tyler]

You are crying over stone statues, yet you ignore completely the massacre of 1 million innocent civilians in Afghan and Iraq. Are statues more important than human beings?

And you refuse to acknowledge that the destruction of the statues was disgusting or, at the very least, regrettable. It's a lot less bad than killing a million people, but it's still awful.

You expect Michael to condemn the bad acts perpetuated by his side, but refuse to acknowledge those on your own. (Or, conversely, Michael expects you to condemn the bad acts..., but refuses to...)

If you want to have any hope of convincing someone on the total opposite side of an argument, you'd be best served to acknowledge the middle ground between each other first. And seeing as you have the power of God on your side, why not be the bigger the man and just say "yes, that was awful... now what about the wars?"

Considering that 'humble' seems to be a requisite for any religion, it's kind of surprising that those who identify as theists often seem to be just as stubborn as the next guy.

When the Taliban governor (the actual leadership had nothing to with this, as it is a decentralized form of gov) heard about this issue, he asked the archaeologists to instead use this money to help the orphans of this region and help build schools for Afghans. When the Westerners mocked the Taliban governor proposal, he get angry and thus ordered the statues to be destroyed. A decision made in anger, but used by the Western press to further demonize the Taliban.

Wait... Let me get this logic straight...
1) Some people want to use money to do some restoration of an irreplaceable work of art.
2) The local politician would rather the money be given to a different cause.
--------------------------------------------
3) Therefore it is morally justifiable to blow up the irreplaceable art.

Really? I mean... really???

What if that money was donated by people who had specific interest in that art? What if the expressed desire of those people was to restore the art? Should their money be confiscated? Ought the Taliban have the right to steal the money because it could go to more useful things?

Jeez. If that's how Islamic morality functions I'm severely confused as to how you own a computer. After all, that money could have gone to charity.

We are talking about women being asked to reveal themselves in front of strange men, and whether this is acceptable. Naturally as you can imagine, few women, esp modest Muslim women, would be comfortable with that scenario.

I don't think the problem is one woman not being willing to take off her shirt. The problem is either (a) the school board unilaterally deciding to remove the program in fear of offending someone (b) the parents or child complaining enough such that the school board decided to remove the program. If (a) then the problem is a phenomenally weak and stupid school board. If (b) then the problems are insane parents and a phenomenally weak and stupid school board.

You get what you pay for.

The statues lasted 1400 years under exclusive Muslim rule.

When the Americans armed the mujahideen, they voted for this.

Are you completely incapable of condemning people who are not white? Or do you just like to play that role on sciforums?

Or is there something I don't understand about Islam? As I can remember the Qu'ran (admittedly from only one reading), much like the other Abrahamic faiths it says that each and every act by a person is the responsibility of the person who performed it. At no time can one say "I offended God, but it is not my fault because someone else also did something bad." That doesn't fly with God. He expects you to be good no matter what other people do. Or am I wrong about this understanding?

The taliban did bad things. Yes, America royally screwed up the transition from Soviet war to current nation-state. Yes, America shares in a large chunk of the blame for what Afghanistan became.

But it was still Afghanis who blew up the building. And, I would think as a religious person you would acknowledge that God would never say "well, those stupid Americans put you in charge, so we can't really blame you for this tragedy."

At least the Taliban are destroying their own heritage.

Woah, woah, woah. Buddhist history is now considered a part of the Taliban's heritage? I suppose you then also support Beijing's claim that Tibetan (both Chinese and Indian, I might add) Buddhism is properly the property of Han Chinese heritage?

 

[S.A.M.]

Perhaps people should not do anything and let the elite shit on poor people and criminals keep them living in fear. We see this all over the world and when someone tries to change it they get attacked from all sides. So i guess this is life.

That is what was happening over the last 60 years. People have got tired of it now. They want to breathe and live and work.

 

[Baron Max]

I suggest you read the Oxford papers on Babylon for US military actions there.

Maybe if the Iraqis hadn't used the ruins of Babylon as a fortress, the US wouldn't have had to even go into that pile of rubble ....ever think of that, SAM?

It's the same issue as how the Muslim extremists use women and children as cover, then yell and complain with those same women and children are harmed in any way. Sad, ain't it?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

And you refuse to acknowledge that the destruction of the statues was disgusting or, at the very least, regrettable. It's a lot less bad than killing a million people, but it's still awful.

You expect Michael to condemn the bad acts perpetuated by his side, but refuse to acknowledge those on your own. (Or, conversely, Michael expects you to condemn the bad acts..., but refuses to...)

I had the same opinion after the Babri Masjid demolition. Its just sticks and stones. Was it worth having 6000 people die over? I don't think so. I think history is people, not sticks and stones. Given a choice, I would always vote for saving the people. It has nothing to do with any side.

Do I regret the Americans crushing the 2600 year old bricks of Babylon? Maybe its a great tragedy to some archaeologist. If I had ever been there, I might have oohed and aahed over it for a few minutes and thats it. I can still walk over the crushed bricks. But I could not have walked over the dead bodies laid end to end. To me it is as simple as that.

Woah, woah, woah. Buddhist history is now considered a part of the Taliban's heritage? I suppose you then also support Beijing's claim that Tibetan (both Chinese and Indian, I might add) Buddhism is properly the property of Han Chinese heritage?

No clue. I have no idea what Tibet is to China in terms of history. But the Taliban are Pashtun and the Pashtuns were Buddhists before they adopted Islam. Afghanistan is their heritage.

 

[Tyler]

Well, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I find it deeply regrettable when history and art are destroyed. Perhaps that is because I love art, history and the knowledge we can gain from them as well as the inspiration they give to people. I don't think I've ever said they are more important than people. I just said they're important. If you think history, art and knowledge are unimportant, then we just differ.

But the Taliban are Pashtun and the Pashtuns were Buddhists before they adopted Islam. Afghanistan is their heritage.

I agree it is part of their heritage, and partially their heritage. But I'm kind of surprised you wouldn't acknowledge that it's also part of the wider Buddhist world's heritage. If Mecca were destroyed by the Saud's would you say "well, it's their history and heritage, so they can do what they want with it."? Or would you lament the fact that they destroyed heritage that belongs to Moslems world-wide?

As an Indian do you feel that the destruction of Indian temples inside Chinese-Tibet is completely excusable since Beijing now rules Tibet and considers it part of "their heritage"? Or does it belong to the wider Buddhist Indian community as well?

Are nation-states the only holders of heritage? Can the Buddhist community not claim any heritage at all in the Afghan statues?

 

[S.A.M.]

Well, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I find it deeply regrettable when history and art are destroyed. Perhaps that is because I love art, history and the knowledge we can gain from them as well as the inspiration they give to people. I don't think I've ever said they are more important than people. I just said they're important. If you think history, art and knowledge are unimportant, then we just differ.

I love art, history and knowledge too. But given a choice, I would vote for people.

I agree it is part of their heritage, and partially their heritage. But I'm kind of surprised you wouldn't acknowledge that it's also part of the wider Buddhist world's heritage. If Mecca were destroyed by the Saud's would you say "well, it's their history and heritage, so they can do what they want with it."? Or would you lament the fact that they destroyed heritage that belongs to Moslems world-wide?

Mecca has been destroyed by the Sauds. When the Wahabbis came to power in the 1900s they destroyed all the mausoleums and structures which they considered as bidaah.

But Mecca is an idea. No matter what anyone does, it exists as a concept not as sticks as stones. So its destruction really would have to take place in the minds of people.

As an Indian do you feel that the destruction of Indian temples inside Chinese-Tibet is completely excusable since Beijing now rules Tibet and considers it part of "their heritage"? Or does it belong to the wider Buddhist Indian community as well?

Are nation-states the only holders of heritage? Can the Buddhist community not claim any heritage at all in the Afghan statues?

A temple is a place for worship. It just so happens that because of the importance people give to religion, temples and religious icons have become the milestones of history. They are interesting and tell us about the people who live there. But like the Babri Masjid, if no one is using them or if people change their minds about religion, they will be replaced. Change is a part of the human psyche. Some people like to keep old things around some people don't.

And more and more today, we live in a disposable culture. What will our temples be?

 

[Tyler]

I love art, history and knowledge too. But given a choice, I would vote for people.

And I'm pretty sure I never said anything against that.

Mecca has been destroyed by the Sauds. When the Wahabbis came to power in the 1900s they destroyed all the mausoleums and structures which they considered as bidaah.

I was unaware. Sorry, bad example.

A temple is a place for worship. It just so happens that because of the importance people give to religion, temples and religious icons have become the milestones of history. They are interesting and tell us about the people who live there. But like the Babri Masjid, if no one is using them or if people change their minds about religion, they will be replaced. Change is a part of the human psyche. Some people like to keep old things around some people don't.

This is an explanation for why it happens. Not a justification of anything.

 

[S.A.M.]

I was unaware. Sorry, bad example.

No, its actually a good one. Mecca exists as long as Muslims want it to, not because of some structures.

This is an explanation for why it happens. Not a justification of anything.

It requires neither. The value we attach to any stone is subjective.

 

[Tyler]

No, I mean it's a bad example because Mecca is a concept rather than a structure.

Yes, all of that value is subjective. I agree.

But I still want to know why only the Afghans can claim heritage in those statues. And specifically the Afghans; why do you choose nation-states as the natural holders of heritage? That seems to go against your grain.