Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2013 - 06:46pm PT
|
Not going back nearly far enough.
Try 599 BC and the Greco Persian wars.
Then there was the battle of Poitiers in 732
Charles Martel and Holger Danske at the gates of Vienna.
|
|
guido
Trad climber
Santa Cruz/New Zealand/South Pacific
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2013 - 09:31pm PT
|
"An eye for an eye, till all the world was blind"
|
|
Majid_S
Mountain climber
Bay Area , California
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2013 - 11:34pm PT
|
Zhang Jingchuan wrapped his arms around his crying wife as soon as he walked out of the arrival area of Urumqi International Airport on Tuesday.
His flight from Islamabad, capital of Pakistan, landed in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region at 4:12 pm.
The 42-year-old mountaineer was the only Chinese climber to survive a pre-dawn terrorist attack in Pakistan's northern Gilgit-Baltistan area on Sunday.
The attack left 11 people dead, including two Chinese climbers on their way to conquering Nanga Parbat, the world's ninth-highest mountain. Jundullah, a group linked to the Pakistani Taliban, later claimed responsibility.
Twenty-four Pakistani climbers and 19 foreign nationals were evacuated by helicopter, according to Pakistan media, which reported that police have arrested 37 suspects.
Zhang held his wife in a long embrace on Tuesday amid a throng of reporters.
With his eyes hidden behind sunglasses, he spoke briefly to the press. "I'm fine," he said in a low voice when asked about the 5-centimeter wound on his head, where he was grazed by a terrorist bullet.
Zhang declined to talk about the attack, but his friend, An Shaohua, who was at the airport, repeated the details Zhang gave him during a phone call from Pakistan.
He said the attack came just after midnight, as the mountaineers rested in their tents at the base camp. Before Zhang had time to react, he had been tied up and dragged from his tent at gunpoint, An said.
At first, Zhang, a former soldier from Yunnan province, said he thought it was a robbery, but past experience told him it was more than that and he began to work out an escape plan.
After the terrorists had collected all the valuables, the shooting started, An said, recalling his friend's account. When Yang Chunfeng, a mountaineer from Xinjiang, was shot, Zhang was able to untie his rope and flee bare-footed.
"Zhang said he could feel bullets flying past his head," An told reporters, adding that he evaded the pursuing gunmen by jumping off a cliff and hiding. "He didn't realize he was wounded until he was rescued."
After the attackers had left, Zhang returned to base camp to fetch his clothes and a satellite phone. He then called a friend in Kunming, Yunnan province, at about 4 am.
"Without a military background, there is no way he would have survived this," An said.
Yang, 45, and Rao Jianfeng, 49, from Guangdong province, died in the attack. Their friends and relativities flew to Islamabad from Urumqi on Tuesday morning to collect their bodies.
"He called me several times after the attack, but only briefly because he didn't want me and our 11-year-old son to worry too much," said Zhang's wife, who gave her name as Wang. "I learned most of the details from the media. It was unavoidable."
Zhang's first stop after he landed was Yang's house in Urumqi to return some of Yang's belongings to his parents. He and his wife said they plan to return to Kunming on Wednesday.
To questions about his future, Zhang said he just wants to enjoy life with his wife. He did not answer when asked whether he will ever attempt another mountain challenge.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:22am PT
|
And what fundamentally is the difference in mind set between radical islam or radical christianity?
Radical Christianity almost never kills those who choose to not convert, radical Islam has a proven historical record of just the opposite.
And the whole Ireland thing was not so much about religion as it was about independent Statehood from British authority.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:25am PT
|
Radical Christianity almost never kills those who choose to not convert, radical Islam has a proven historical record of just the opposite.
uh...*ahem*...Bullshit!
You haven't looked TOO closely at the historical record have you brother?
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:37am PT
|
There is something seriously sick about that death cult they call a religion
where people just go alone acting normal then suddenly zap! they start killing.
Sort of matches the fictional definition of zombies we all laugh at.
But not laughing this time. No.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 01:14am PT
|
Examine religions over time.....nearly every one had a period where death cult woud have been an apt description. I would guess that more people have died in the name of Christianity than any other religion.
|
|
TWP
Trad climber
Mancos, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 04:46pm PT
|
Bluering said,"Radical Christianity almost never kills those who choose to not convert."
This claim is fact compromised.
My favorite example?
The Conquistadors in the American Southwest were accompanied by priests and operated under instructions from the Spanish King. The King laid out a dual mission: 1. Find gold and 2. Save souls for Christ.
The Conquistadors, Padres and King had anticipated that a contradiction of "Christian morals" might arise from the premeditated killing of the local Indians in order to get the gold BEFORE those same Indians even had a chance to convert to Christianity and have their wretched souls saved.
This dilemma was handled by what we now call - in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan - "the rules of engagement."
Here was the Spanish solution. Once a Indian village was spotted but before the attack, the Spanish padre - standing far back from the village and surrounded by soldiers - would display the Cross, holding it high above his head for the heathen to see and behold!
Thus exposed the power of the Cross, the heathens were supposed to "spontaneously convert." But if they failed to do so, THEN the Padre gave the OK for the soldiers to attack, kill and plunder in the name of the King and Spain. History does not bring to us any examples wherein the heathens avoided their own destruction by the expedient of spontaneous conversion. History does provide abundant examples wherein the Conquistadors, Cruscaders and US armed forces resorted to warfare under their self-serving "rules of engagement" and overcome whatever forces lay between themselves and resource (be it gold, land, or oil) which was the object of their material desire.
This bloviation does nothing to rationalize or condone the actions of the religious zealots who killed innocent mountaineers. It seeks to make clear that no cultural, religious or ethnic subset of the human race has any realistic claim to superiority. I merely point out that we are all pond scum - just as Mr. Donini contends.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 04:55pm PT
|
“You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is like an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”
Ghandi
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 04:59pm PT
|
I have a definitional problem. What is a "radical" religion? It seems to me that the arguments on this thread relating to that mysterious term all end up as tautologies, and not particularly useful ones at that.
John
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 05:10pm PT
|
Fact is, thre's a percentage of us who simply love killing. It must be heady stuff, gauging on how fired up people get when a soldier ofts the "enemy" (in those "embdded" military vids you can watch on YouTube et al). Tnhe get a medal for it. The "reason" is defense of the motherland, usually without fail. But the tool of the trade, on both sides, since the beginning of time, is aggresion, plain and simple.
Once again, arguing ANY of this at the level of symptonms and responses will never touch the root cause ergo we'll just keep doing the same thing (killing) ad nauseum. So long as we have honor and heroics hooked up to it, as opposed to living with the fallout evident in that missive about the Chinese climber, or the kids executed by drone fire, we can realistically never expect change - but plenty more discussions about our moral superiority.
So who amongst us is wiling to give up their/our right to kill someone as needed or desired?
JL
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 05:40pm PT
|
..... Christianity almost never kills those who choose to not convert awww c'mon bluey.
the Crusades
burning Joan of Arc at the stake.
The Inquisitions to combat "heresy" (Catholics murdering not quite good enough Catholics and Muslims) in general
American Indians could save themselves by converting to Christianity.
Salem witch trials.
Peruvian Inquisition in particular 1570 - 1820......1820!! of natives who refused to convert.
The Irish "troubles"
And many many more over the past 1000 years since Christianity took hold in Europe.
You cannot name ONE major religion that hasn't slaughtered others (men, women AND children) in the name of Religion.
John, Bruce
I doubt the Catholic Church was considered "radical" during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Nor when it was slaughtering native Americans. This was business as usual.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 05:49pm PT
|
Catliks aren't slaughtering anyone now and haven't for a few hundred years.
Muzzies are producing a daily body count in the dozens and the victims are usually from the wrong sect or just not pious enough.
Once in a while they kill infidels.
|
|
TWP
Trad climber
Mancos, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:24pm PT
|
In re Largo's point that "the problem" is human propensity for aggression, I add this refinement.
How much of the human aggression and war has been committed by young males?
Let's just round things off to a rough approximation: 100%.
What sets the young male apart from the rest of the species?
Answer: a high level of testosterone in the blood stream.
I've seen many cases of violent criminals sent down for big time for acts committed while they were aged 18-25 who became far safer and saner by the time their testosterone levels came down, say by age 40.
Who gets drafted by the Armies of the world, the Taliban, the African children armies?
Answer: young boys, the younger the better it seems.
What is the age of the "terrorists" beyond virtually every atrocity committed by the Jihadists? Pretty damn young. Before the "terrorist" has time to grow up, lighten up, and get laid enough. Or simply survive his own maturation into adulthood and the slow down of the testosterone-created rage inside his own being. Aren't most of the posters on this forum the fortunate survivors of their own testosterone-driven, crazed acts?
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 08:13pm PT
|
I want to know how they got down this road without being caught because reports say the police were called via sat phone as soon as the terrorist left. This is just crazy.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:50pm PT
|
awww c'mon bluey.
the Crusades
burning Joan of Arc at the stake.
The Inquisitions to combat "heresy" (Catholics murdering not quite good enough Catholics and Muslims) in general
American Indians could save themselves by converting to Christianity.
Salem witch trials.
Peruvian Inquisition in particular 1570 - 1820......1820!! of natives who refused to convert.
The Irish "troubles"
And many many more over the past 1000 years since Christianity took hold in Europe.
You cannot name ONE major religion that hasn't slaughtered others (men, women AND children) in the name of Religion.
John, Bruce
I doubt the Catholic Church was considered "radical" during the Crusades and the Inquisition. Nor when it was slaughtering native Americans. This was business as usual.
That's itching to go back far enough to find the obvious examples. I'm talking 19th-21st centuries here man.
As for the Crusades? Can we be honest about that? Is was a counter-response to a brutal Islamic Caliphate ranging from across Arabia, N. Africa, The ottoman Empire, and into Europe!
You cannot name ONE major religion that hasn't slaughtered others (men, women AND children) in the name of Religion.
Throughout history? It would have to be Islam. Of course you will leave out the differentiation of killing in the NAME of religion.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:20pm PT
|
Now that I think about it, Communists (atheists) may take the prize for the last couple hundred years....
But they did it for the "State", which you could argue is not atheism. Or is it?
Largo's point is the typical "intellectual" equivocating. "If only we didn't be aggressive towards them", and all that bullsh#t. It's the silly chicken-before-egg argument that people get lost debating while people are dying.
And this applies to Israel/Palestine, Afghan/Pakistan/Russia/USA wars. Although the Russkies tried to aggressively occupy and "steal" Afghan, while we wanted to kill bad guys, liberate the joint, and make a new friend and come home.
Pakistan? Those bastards let a wound fester in their land unchecked. The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), that were ironically un-adminsistered. As a result, the Taliban made a home for radical terrorists that also infected Afghanistan. The Taliban worked closely with them in the E. Afghan.
Even the Pak Army waged a war against them 2 years ago to root out the militants back into Afghan into our troops
My point? If you're advocating singing Kumbaya and bringing everyone home so there will be no aggression, I may be with you.
But next time a bomb rips a boy apart in Boston and rips his sisters legs off, can we take a look at immigration policy from Islamic countries?
Next time someone claims that we lost 3,000 people because we buy too much oil from Saudis, can we bomb the claimants location at will?
Or do we still hold hands and sing together and just wait for the next fuxking blast?
Killing religiously or in the name of a religion has no difference in the minds of those killed.
Don't you mean killing irreligiously (gang-banger or robbery) or in the name of religion?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2013 - 12:45am PT
|
My point is "intellectualizing?" Surely you jest. It's the exaxct opposite of that. I'm looking at the whole thing at the root, instinctual level, long before thought enters the picture. The intellectual reasoning begins once we start making up our mythologies about "why" we like to kill things, always in moral, religious, or defensive termjs, havikng nothing to do with the spectacular rush and addictive no-holds barred charge at the other guy.
Simply put, aggression is to violence and "self-defense" what booze is to alcoholism. You remove the aggression and the booze, you still have the problem to deal with, but the means suddenly change because they have to. If you cannot beat your wife, then you either have to talk things out or witdrawl. Imagine how many martial and political (same thing) problems would be averted if pride and aggression were ruled out.
And Jim, in psychology, it is very difficult to get people to see and own up to their own process, what they are actually doing. When you start looking at real or imagined "causes" ouitside of yourself, it is only one step to blamking the other guy for your own actions, such as, "He made me do it." Aggression is an impulse and instinctual response and only the mature and conscious and intention folk amonst us can control these forecs within us and channel them into construct work. The same energy that makes us honk and jeer at others on the road is what kills people, it's just that the amplitude is turned way up in the later. Most of this kind of stuff is totally lost on people becasue they have never studied human behavior at the instinctual/brain stem level, rather at the limbic (feeling) and neocortex (thought) levels, which are not nearly as potent as the older impulses.
JL
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2013 - 12:48am PT
|
horsesh#t
america is the greatest purveyor of violence the world has ever seen!
was true in world war 2
was doubly true when king said it,
and is 10x as bad today now that america doesnt have an actual enemy anywhere within a billion miles yet is busy tighten nooses around the necks of russia and china [ both nations we promised to help their people as soon as they overthrew their communists governments WHICH both did] in addition to bombing the middle east into pieces
while stalking africa with the same dirty tricks it formerly used in the americas WHILE arming every cut throat in central and south america via the fiction of a drug war
there hasnt been an a hot spot in 70 years where WE the AMERICANS wernt the chief investor in creating the unrest and then arming the worest offenders in the battle
Your ignorance is very apparent. Look at history, of this country, and who we killed, and why they were killed.
Also take a look at who we saved from totalitarianism. Who we helped in times of need when others waivered, waiting for us to show up.
Try to bring your full game to the table. We can kill lots of people indeed, but we are very careful with that can of whoop-ass.
Again, you'll never mention the good we did.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!