RIP Thai Democracy

[malo2]

Hmm, what will this do for the region i wonder? An (apparant) muslim extremist in control of a nation who are mostly non-muslims.

 

 

 

It's a shame in my opinion but i am interested to see the response of nearby countries. Korea particularly, and China

 

 

 

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!! Can't he just be a crazy man who just happens to be Muslim!! Please look at them as an individual not relating to the religion. Sorry....

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, that sucks for Thailand.

Simply because of how serious many muslims, espechially muslim extremists are about their religion. If they (muslim extremists) wouldnt threaten to take over the world, and the regular muslims wouldnt be screaming "death to the Jews", when we wouldbnt be refering to them as "those Muslim people"

[indy500fan]

You surely can't criticise a nation for rising up to overthrow a corrupt government (I think in some US states such a right is still enshrined in law).

 

 

 

It is in our Declaration of Independence. I use it as my background :D .

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure about it being part of the law, that seems a little odd. I don't think it is part, but I could be wrong.

[darkmage099]

Hmm, what will this do for the region i wonder? An (apparant) muslim extremist in control of a nation who are mostly non-muslims.

 

 

 

It's a shame in my opinion but i am interested to see the response of nearby countries. Korea particularly, and China

 

 

 

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!! Can't he just be a crazy man who just happens to be Muslim!! Please look at them as an individual not relating to the religion. Sorry....

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, that sucks for Thailand.

Simply because of how serious many muslims, espechially muslim extremists are about their religion. If they (muslim extremists) wouldnt threaten to take over the world, and the regular muslims wouldnt be screaming "death to the Jews", when we wouldbnt be refering to them as "those Muslim people"

 

 

 

Most of those extremists are Muslim fundamentalists. My branch of Islam doesn't even have a country or a place where our type of Islam is the main religion. We are dispersed throughout U.S.A., Canada (lots), Australia, France, UK, Pakistan, parts of Africa, and China. Just dont take in the common misconception that we all were raised to be that crazy. Regular Muslims are NOT saying "death to Jews" those would be the few extremists. Besides, this is one man, not the whole religion.

[BlueLancer]

Sometimes, this forum makes me go LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

 

 

 

So true..

 

 

 

1. First of all, they are NOT under an "absolute monarch" like somebody said. The king actually has very little formal powers. His authority is very respected on political issues though, but the country is a constitutional monarchy.

 

 

 

2. As posted earlier, this man, Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is more than corrupt. You might want to research his sale of Shin Corporation stocks worth $1.8 billion dollars under sketchy circumstances.

 

 

 

Well, i've never really cared about Thailand. Except that the kids there make cheap plastic calculators that come apart in 5 minutes for a quarter and hour... Anyway, I would've loved to have been there, cause I likes tanks...

 

 

 

Sorry, but... Jerk #-o

 

 

 

As if the UN will actually do anything. It even canceled Thailand's speech because he wasn't considered the prime minister anymore.

 

 

 

Actually, Mr. Shinawatra canceled the speech himself and flew to London where he owns real estate.

 

 

 

a. Thailand is not an Islamic state, Buddism is also a strong force there.

 

b. This was a bloodless coup

 

 

 

You surely can't criticise a nation for rising up to overthrow a corrupt government (I think in some US states such a right is still enshrined in law). Such corruption and electoral fraud it tantamount to dictatorship and recent history shows that the US and UK have taken a selectviely strong line on dictatorships.

 

 

 

At last, somebody with common sense and information. :)

 

 

 

The general can NOT hold power for long because he doesn't have the public support to create an islamic republic or anything of that sort. Eventually the army could turn against him too.

 

 

 

As the general has stated, they have no intention of holding power and will be electing a new prime minister as soon as possible. No blood was shed and most importantly, no protests took place. Sure you could say "well, the army was on the streets with their tanks". It was on the streets during protests under Shinawatra too, there were over 300,000 protesters which is a gigantic amount for a country such as Thailand.

 

 

 

Just dont take in the common misconception that we all were raised to be that crazy.

 

 

 

Just don't count on the average intelligence of a western person... It could be lower than you think. Still today lots of unseen racism and religious intolerance takes place on a large scale in "civilized" countries. See also the 'calculator' remark above... So typical..

 

 

 

 

Yay for the religion of peace!

 

 

 

Let's see how many people died during the coup... 0? Isn't this a bit better than the French Revolution, American Revolution, British Revolution..? I don't see how much more peacefully a coup can take place especially when it focuses on just one corrupt-to-the-bone man.

 

 

 

I know you are referring to the general though, it has nothing to do with his religion. If you didn't know it, high ranking military offices in Thailand rotate annually and able commanders are picked regardless of their religion (mostly Buddhist and Muslim)

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

You surely can't criticise a nation for rising up to overthrow a corrupt government (I think in some US states such a right is still enshrined in law). Such corruption and electoral fraud it tantamount to dictatorship and recent history shows that the US and UK have taken a selectviely strong line on dictatorships.

 

 

 

 

You can't criticise the removal of the previous regime it was corrupt, it was virtually a dictatorship. However, what is the point of removing a virtual dictatorship and then implementing a total military dictatorship instead. If the general declared his dedication to restore fair democracy as well as a timetable for national elections then I would support this revolution however, until then I have to be critical.

[BlueLancer]

 

 

 

You surely can't criticise a nation for rising up to overthrow a corrupt government (I think in some US states such a right is still enshrined in law). Such corruption and electoral fraud it tantamount to dictatorship and recent history shows that the US and UK have taken a selectviely strong line on dictatorships.

 

 

 

 

You can't criticise the removal of the previous regime it was corrupt, it was virtually a dictatorship. However, what is the point of removing a virtual dictatorship and then implementing a total military dictatorship instead. If the general declared his dedication to restore fair democracy as well as a timetable for national elections then I would support this revolution however, until then I have to be critical.

 

 

 

Don't by any means take this as personal. I'm just wondering where you guys get your information, one of the first things reported about the coup was the general's intent to choose a new prime minister as soon as possible and a parlamentary election timetable, scheduled for 2007.

[KCHughes]

There was nothing democratic about the Thai elections. The newly-ousted PM rigged them, he was incredibly corrupt, and they're under an absolute monarch anyway. No power is really changing hands.

 

 

 

He wasn't an absolute monarch...

 

 

 

If the PM as you say rigged the elections (keyword elections) would their monarch's power be absolute?

 

 

 

 

 

And btw their king has always been there ever since the late 40s/early 50s...

 

 

 

He has seen dozens of governments, democratic or not. And he remains a figure head. Or right now, probably being used by the generals...

 

 

 

Its too early to say. :-k

 

 

 

The UK has a queen. She has no power, but she's still there. Tony Blair and his cronies have all the power. That's like how it is in Thailand, except the MONARCH has all the power and the PRIME MINISTER is *elected* to do insignificant tasks like diplomatic duties. What little power the PM actually posseses (possesed), he uses (used) mainly for fulfilling personal obligations. Even though the military is overthrowing him, the king will still be in complete control of the government.

 

 

 

In short, Thailand was never a democracy, therefore democracy in Thailand cannot "rest in peace."

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

You surely can't criticise a nation for rising up to overthrow a corrupt government (I think in some US states such a right is still enshrined in law). Such corruption and electoral fraud it tantamount to dictatorship and recent history shows that the US and UK have taken a selectviely strong line on dictatorships.

 

 

 

 

You can't criticise the removal of the previous regime it was corrupt, it was virtually a dictatorship. However, what is the point of removing a virtual dictatorship and then implementing a total military dictatorship instead. If the general declared his dedication to restore fair democracy as well as a timetable for national elections then I would support this revolution however, until then I have to be critical.

 

 

 

Don't by any means take this as personal. I'm just wondering where you guys get your information, one of the first things reported about the coup was the general's intent to choose a new prime minister as soon as possible and a parlamentary election timetable, scheduled for 2007.

 

 

 

I only caught the early reports coming out of Thailand as the situation happened on Tuesday, Ive not been in today so i do admit to being slightly out of the loop. If as you said the general has timetabled elections then I do support his position, as I alluded to in my last post.

 

 

 

Note to self - Quickly read up on this sort of stuff prior to posting #-o

[BlueLancer]

There was nothing democratic about the Thai elections. The newly-ousted PM rigged them, he was incredibly corrupt, and they're under an absolute monarch anyway. No power is really changing hands.

 

 

 

He wasn't an absolute monarch...

 

 

 

If the PM as you say rigged the elections (keyword elections) would their monarch's power be absolute?

 

 

 

 

 

And btw their king has always been there ever since the late 40s/early 50s...

 

 

 

He has seen dozens of governments, democratic or not. And he remains a figure head. Or right now, probably being used by the generals...

 

 

 

Its too early to say. :-k

 

 

 

The UK has a queen. She has no power, but she's still there. Tony Blair and his cronies have all the power. That's like how it is in Thailand, except the MONARCH has all the power and the PRIME MINISTER is *elected* to do insignificant tasks like diplomatic duties. What little power the PM actually posseses (possesed), he uses (used) mainly for fulfilling personal obligations. Even though the military is overthrowing him, the king will still be in complete control of the government.

 

 

 

In short, Thailand was never a democracy, therefore democracy in Thailand cannot "rest in peace."

 

 

 

Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You might want to read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Thailand

 

 

 

The monarch has NO legal powers even under the former constitution. Let me quote a few exerpts:

 

 

 

The king has little direct power under the constitution but is the anointed protector of Thai Buddhism and a symbol of national identity and unity. The present monarch enjoys a great deal of popular respect and moral authority, which has on occasion been used to resolve political crises.

 

 

 

Which in practice is a similar position as that of the Japanese Emperor at the moment.

 

 

 

The head of government is the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the king from among the members of the lower house of parliament, usually the leader of the party that can organise a majority coalition government.

 

 

 

Just as in the United Kingdom or Japan, the monarch appoints a prime minister. This does not mean he or she can restrain from doing so. The leader of the majority coalition or party is in 100% of the cases also the prime minister, such as Tony Blair or the former Junichiro Koizumi.

 

 

 

Other than being a figurehead with strong national authority and sometimes interfering with serious ethical debates, the king does not take an active part in the country's politics.

[redserpent4]

Hmm, what will this do for the region i wonder? An (apparant) muslim extremist in control of a nation who are mostly non-muslims.

 

 

 

It's a shame in my opinion but i am interested to see the response of nearby countries. Korea particularly, and China

 

 

 

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!! Can't he just be a crazy man who just happens to be Muslim!! Please look at them as an individual not relating to the religion. Sorry....

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, that sucks for Thailand.

Simply because of how serious many muslims, espechially muslim extremists are about their religion. If they (muslim extremists) wouldnt threaten to take over the world, and the regular muslims wouldnt be screaming "death to the Jews", when we wouldbnt be refering to them as "those Muslim people"

 

 

 

Most of those extremists are Muslim fundamentalists. My branch of Islam doesn't even have a country or a place where our type of Islam is the main religion. We are dispersed throughout U.S.A., Canada (lots), Australia, France, UK, Pakistan, parts of Africa, and China. Just dont take in the common misconception that we all were raised to be that crazy. Regular Muslims are NOT saying "death to Jews" those would be the few extremists. Besides, this is one man, not the whole religion.

 

 

 

I said a muslim extremist not generic muslim. Malo is right anyway, my dad was called an infidel who "deserved a painful death" by muslim protestors in London. Sorry, he works for the BBC, does that make it his fault some Dutch newspaper published offensive cartooons? He works in radio, so nothing to do with him whats shown on tv. I have nothing against Muslims, i really don't and I hope no one gets the impression that i do.

 

 

 

And quite frankly if its worth the major news corporations from around the world mentioning the fact that the man who took over is a muslim in a largely Buddhist country, i dont see why i should omit the fact.

 

 

 

More on topic, i said it would be interesting to see what happens because at the time i posted it, no one knew the general was going to ensure the appointment of a new prime minister. for all i, or anyone else knew he could have taken absolute control, anything could have happened. And if he had done, i would have found it interesting to see what the reaction of China or Korea would have been...

 

 

 

As it is, the takeover was bloodless, which is a great thing. Many of the inhabitants of the country seem to be glad of the takeover, another good thing. The "democracy" was hardly democratic so you can't really say, with the information now available, that the take over was not perhaps in the best interests of many people.

[Guest GhostRanger]

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!!

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I'm answering your question not making a personal point.

 

 

 

The reason everyone does this is because in the last 50 years Muslims:

 

 

 

1) Bombed the London underground railways in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

2) Attacked Spain in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

3) Flew airplanes into the twin towers, the pentagon, and had intentions to fly more planes into other buildings in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

4) Attacked the USS Cole in October 2000 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

5) Bombed the US embasies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

6) Bombed a US Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

7) Killed 5 Americans with a car bomb in 1995 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

8) Bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

9) Bombedpassenger jet Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

10) Bombed a West Berlin discotheque that was frequented by US service-men in 1986 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

11) Seized an Italian Cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, and killed a sixty-nine year old American in 1985 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

12) Blew up the US Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

13) Bombed the US embassy in Beruit in 1982 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

14) Stormed the US embassy in Iran and held the American embassy staff hostage for 444 days in 1979 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

15) Slaughtered the Jewish Olympians in 1972 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

Once again, I'm not making a personal point. I'm just answering your question.

[darkmage099]

Hmm, what will this do for the region i wonder? An (apparant) muslim extremist in control of a nation who are mostly non-muslims.

 

 

 

It's a shame in my opinion but i am interested to see the response of nearby countries. Korea particularly, and China

 

 

 

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!! Can't he just be a crazy man who just happens to be Muslim!! Please look at them as an individual not relating to the religion. Sorry....

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, that sucks for Thailand.

Simply because of how serious many muslims, espechially muslim extremists are about their religion. If they (muslim extremists) wouldnt threaten to take over the world, and the regular muslims wouldnt be screaming "death to the Jews", when we wouldbnt be refering to them as "those Muslim people"

 

 

 

Most of those extremists are Muslim fundamentalists. My branch of Islam doesn't even have a country or a place where our type of Islam is the main religion. We are dispersed throughout U.S.A., Canada (lots), Australia, France, UK, Pakistan, parts of Africa, and China. Just dont take in the common misconception that we all were raised to be that crazy. Regular Muslims are NOT saying "death to Jews" those would be the few extremists. Besides, this is one man, not the whole religion.

 

 

 

I said a muslim extremist not generic muslim. Malo is right anyway, my dad was called an infidel who "deserved a painful death" by muslim protestors in London. Sorry, he works for the BBC, does that make it his fault some Dutch newspaper published offensive cartooons? He works in radio, so nothing to do with him whats shown on tv. I have nothing against Muslims, i really don't and I hope no one gets the impression that i do.

 

 

 

And quite frankly if its worth the major news corporations from around the world mentioning the fact that the man who took over is a muslim in a largely Buddhist country, i dont see why i should omit the fact.

 

 

 

More on topic, i said it would be interesting to see what happens because at the time i posted it, no one knew the general was going to ensure the appointment of a new prime minister. for all i, or anyone else knew he could have taken absolute control, anything could have happened. And if he had done, i would have found it interesting to see what the reaction of China or Korea would have been...

 

 

 

As it is, the takeover was bloodless, which is a great thing. Many of the inhabitants of the country seem to be glad of the takeover, another good thing. The "democracy" was hardly democratic so you can't really say, with the information now available, that the take over was not perhaps in the best interests of many people.

 

 

 

Malo said the general Muslim says that. That is unarguably WRONG. Don't think that him being Muslim had anything to do with the overthrowing of the gov't. How is Malo right except about the part of the Muslim extremist? I'm glad you have nothing against them because you shouldn't. Anyway on topic about Thailand.

 

 

 

I hope Thailand gets back on its feet and continues to...do what they did.

[apinagez]

Yay for the religion of peace!

 

 

 

There goes prejudice against muslims once again.

 

Ousting governors is nothing new... You are problably aware of the oustings supported by the United States against the socialist threat on the second half of the 20th century all around the world.

 

 

 

Where's your moral indignation when countless of people on this forum needlessly bash Christianity? Why not speak up then? Do you just happen to miss it the countless times someone makes a rude comment about Christianity? Give me a break... Christianity bashing is fair game on this message board. But make a jerk at Islam and WATCH OUT.

 

 

 

It's funny, because I made that post and walked upstairs and said to Brad, "Haha. Let's see how long it takes for someone to go crazy because I said that. You can say whatever you want about Christianity on that board, but I guarantee they won't feel the same way about Islam."

 

 

 

I win.

 

 

 

I didn't notice I was bashing Christianity...

 

I didn't notice you winning either.

 

 

 

Sorry. Read what I said again. I never said anything about you bashing Chrsitianity. You didn't bash Islam either. I said that when people make jerks about Christianity you don't say anything, but I say something about Islam and you speak up? Of course you do because Christian-bashing is fair game and everyone knows it.

 

 

 

You did exactly what I knew you would. It's pretty pathetic how you don't say anything anytime anyone makes a rude comment about Christians, but the minute I say something about Islam and you're right there to speak up.

 

 

 

You played right into my hand, so I win.

 

 

 

I don't remember last time someone has made a rude comment about Christianity here... I avoid going in those religion threads.

 

Anyway, you seem to be high.

 

 

 

Oh my sweet muffin.

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? Any kind of religion thread ever made Christianity has been bashed. I was right along with the people bashing it. Gonna have to say you got owned by Ghost.. :?

 

 

 

EDIT:: If you don't go into the religion threads, then you have no place making that statement.

 

 

 

Oh my sweet muffin! I'm not the one talking about Christianity here!

[Biggieg333]

Fine, if Jak thinks I have to post something other than My opinion, I will.

 

 

 

If these Elections were rigged, then how come the king of Thailand did not stop them. How could we normal citizens of the world know that they were rigged, yet the king apparently does not, and he took no action? Also, I believe that the king is just there to maybe remind them of betetr days. Monarchism may still be in some peoples hearts there. Never has been a democracy as far as I am concerned. Take a look at what I found on Wikipedia:

 

 

 

The king has little direct power under the constitution but is the anointed protector of Thai Buddhism and a symbol of national identity and unity. The present monarch enjoys a great deal of popular respect and moral authority, which has on occasion been used to resolve political crises. It is illegal to mock or criticize the King and doing so can bring about charges of l̮̬̉̉se majest̮̩̉̉. The head of government is the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the king from among the members of the lower house of parliament, usually the leader of the party that can organise a majority coalition government.

 

 

 

The bicameral Thai parliament is the National Assembly (ÃÆàÃâøÃâãÃÆàÃâøÃâñÃÆàÃâøÃâÃ

[00 Quanta]

funny how I feel like the only person who is Thai here just finding out what just happened. Well anyways, I hate politics just like I hate Bush :lol:

[jak722]

There was nothing democratic about the Thai elections. The newly-ousted PM rigged them, he was incredibly corrupt, and they're under an absolute monarch anyway. No power is really changing hands.

 

 

 

He wasn't an absolute monarch...

 

 

 

If the PM as you say rigged the elections (keyword elections) would their monarch's power be absolute?

 

 

 

 

 

And btw their king has always been there ever since the late 40s/early 50s...

 

 

 

He has seen dozens of governments, democratic or not. And he remains a figure head. Or right now, probably being used by the generals...

 

 

 

Its too early to say. :-k

 

 

 

The UK has a queen. She has no power, but she's still there. Tony Blair and his cronies have all the power. That's like how it is in Thailand, except the MONARCH has all the power and the PRIME MINISTER is *elected* to do insignificant tasks like diplomatic duties. What little power the PM actually posseses (possesed), he uses (used) mainly for fulfilling personal obligations. Even though the military is overthrowing him, the king will still be in complete control of the government.

 

 

 

In short, Thailand was never a democracy, therefore democracy in Thailand cannot "rest in peace."

 

 

 

Thailand is a constitutional monarchy like the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. He is a figurehead, but he does have enourmous moral and popular support when there is a political crisis.

 

 

 

Their king has little power in their constitution, but he does have some privilages (ie, it is illegal to mock him). The king is also very popular and respected there as I heard.

 

 

 

The vast majority of their parliament is elected by popular vote by the people (although their PM is appointed by the King actually).

 

 

 

And even though their Judicial supreme court judges are also appointed by the King but first nominated by the publicly elected Senate. Prospective judges are examined by a panel first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fine, if Jak thinks I have to post something other than My opinion, I will.

 

 

 

If these Elections were rigged, then how come the king of Thailand did not stop them. How could we normal citizens of the world know that they were rigged, yet the king apparently does not, and he took no action? Also, I believe that the king is just there to maybe remind them of betetr days. Monarchism may still be in some peoples hearts there. Never has been a democracy as far as I am concerned.

 

 

 

 

And Biggieg, I never quoted you... it was 1_man_army, not me.

 

 

 

1_man_army, not me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

 

 

 

 

Now about the rigging part... I DONT KNOW EITHER.

 

 

 

Im sorry but I dont usually busy myself by watching every political event around the world in every country...

 

 

 

Im canadian. If say our governor general here "rigs" the next election, I dont think the people in Thailand will know the background story, or even care... The same goes both ways...

 

 

 

I looked at wikipedia too btw. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And just to make clarification on the other 'religiously inclined' replies:

 

 

 

Thailand is 95% perdominantly Buddhist... Not Muslim...

 

 

 

It takes just one reply to mess up the whole topic eh? :lol:

[dogfever]

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!!

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I'm answering your question not making a personal point.

 

 

 

The reason everyone does this is because in the last 50 years Muslims:

 

 

 

1) Bombed the London underground railways in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

2) Attacked Spain in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

3) Flew airplanes into the twin towers, the pentagon, and had intentions to fly more planes into other buildings in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

4) Attacked the USS Cole in October 2000 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

5) Bombed the US embasies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

6) Bombed a US Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

7) Killed 5 Americans with a car bomb in 1995 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

8) Bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

9) Bombedpassenger jet Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

10) Bombed a West Berlin discotheque that was frequented by US service-men in 1986 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

11) Seized an Italian Cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, and killed a sixty-nine year old American in 1985 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

12) Blew up the US Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

13) Bombed the US embassy in Beruit in 1982 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

14) Stormed the US embassy in Iran and held the American embassy staff hostage for 444 days in 1979 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

15) Slaughtered the Jewish Olympians in 1972 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

Once again, I'm not making a personal point. I'm just answering your question.

 

 

 

Worth noting that when you say 'In the name of religion' a lot of these acts were also a response either directly or indirectly to the establishment and support of the state of Israel. Now I don't think it's worth arguing the toss about who is the worst offender in that dispute because both sides have, in their time, behaved appalingly (bus bombings vs. helicopter rocket attacks on refugee camps). My point is that in this case religious and geographic disputes have become intertwined.

 

 

 

This brings me to my main point. Assuming you can tar 1.3 billion people with the same brush then a similar religious/geographic battle has been fought in Ireland for nearly 100 years. Albeit this dispute is now in a political phase however, in the 32 years leading up to 2001 Catholic and Protestant terror groups were responsible for the murder of 3075 people, the majority of whom were civilians. So muslims don't have a monopoly on senseless bloodshed. In addition, I am not sure I have ever met an English Catholic who condones or actively supports these acts of terror. You cannot label an entire religion on the basis of the acts of the few.

[Guest GhostRanger]

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!!

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I'm answering your question not making a personal point.

 

 

 

The reason everyone does this is because in the last 50 years Muslims:

 

 

 

1) Bombed the London underground railways in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

2) Attacked Spain in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

3) Flew airplanes into the twin towers, the pentagon, and had intentions to fly more planes into other buildings in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

4) Attacked the USS Cole in October 2000 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

5) Bombed the US embasies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

6) Bombed a US Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

7) Killed 5 Americans with a car bomb in 1995 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

8) Bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

9) Bombedpassenger jet Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

10) Bombed a West Berlin discotheque that was frequented by US service-men in 1986 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

11) Seized an Italian Cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, and killed a sixty-nine year old American in 1985 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

12) Blew up the US Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

13) Bombed the US embassy in Beruit in 1982 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

14) Stormed the US embassy in Iran and held the American embassy staff hostage for 444 days in 1979 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

15) Slaughtered the Jewish Olympians in 1972 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

Once again, I'm not making a personal point. I'm just answering your question.

 

 

 

Worth noting that when you say 'In the name of religion' a lot of these acts were also a response either directly or indirectly to the establishment and support of the state of Israel. Now I don't think it's worth arguing the toss about who is the worst offender in that dispute because both sides have, in their time, behaved appalingly (bus bombings vs. helicopter rocket attacks on refugee camps). My point is that in this case religious and geographic disputes have become intertwined.

 

 

 

This brings me to my main point. Assuming you can tar 1.3 billion people with the same brush then a similar religious/geographic battle has been fought in Ireland for nearly 100 years. Albeit this dispute is now in a political phase however, in the 32 years leading up to 2001 Catholic and Protestant terror groups were responsible for the murder of 3075 people, the majority of whom were civilians. So muslims don't have a monopoly on senseless bloodshed. In addition, I am not sure I have ever met an English Catholic who condones or actively supports these acts of terror. You cannot label an entire religion on the basis of the acts of the few.

 

 

 

Who cares? We're not trying to debate about which is the worse religion. darkmage asked a question about why a majority of people refer to their religion when things like this question, and I answered the question. I made it very clear that I wasn't making a personal point, I was just answering the question of 'why.'

[Michael_Allen]

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!!

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I'm answering your question not making a personal point.

 

 

 

The reason everyone does this is because in the last 50 years Muslims:

 

 

 

1) Bombed the London underground railways in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

2) Attacked Spain in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

3) Flew airplanes into the twin towers, the pentagon, and had intentions to fly more planes into other buildings in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

4) Attacked the USS Cole in October 2000 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

5) Bombed the US embasies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

6) Bombed a US Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

7) Killed 5 Americans with a car bomb in 1995 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

8) Bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

9) Bombedpassenger jet Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

10) Bombed a West Berlin discotheque that was frequented by US service-men in 1986 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

11) Seized an Italian Cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, and killed a sixty-nine year old American in 1985 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

12) Blew up the US Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

13) Bombed the US embassy in Beruit in 1982 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

14) Stormed the US embassy in Iran and held the American embassy staff hostage for 444 days in 1979 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

15) Slaughtered the Jewish Olympians in 1972 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

Once again, I'm not making a personal point. I'm just answering your question.

 

 

 

Oh because christians are so pure and full of love.

 

 

 

Serious you people make me sick

 

 

 

Look at what christians and westerners have done to the middle east and africa in the last 2000 years.

 

 

 

1. Raped Jerusalem - In the name of YOUR religion

 

 

 

2. Raped Africa - In the name of YOUR religion ( GOD AND COUNTRY)

 

 

 

3.Umm the vatican has killed how many people in the name of YOUR religion.

 

 

 

4. Europeans pratically wiped out the amercian native indians, BECAUSE THEY DIDNT LIVE THERE WAY.

 

 

 

Im a westerner and personally feel we have the worst history in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously just because some countries don't run in a democarcy doesn't mean they are evil.

 

Look at all the conspiracys and murders probley commited by democratic countries.

 

 

 

The world is changing people HAVE to live with each other so why don't we put all this religion crap behind us and just try and get along.

[dogfever]

 

Who cares? We're not trying to debate about which is the worse religion. darkmage asked a question about why a majority of people refer to their religion when things like this question, and I answered the question. I made it very clear that I wasn't making a personal point, I was just answering the question of 'why.'

 

 

 

I think the point darkmage was making was that religion was not an issue in the Thai coup d'etat. The dispute over the legitimacy of the presidency was constitutional and not an issue of religion.

 

 

 

Religion is not an issue in every world event simply because extreme elements of one religion or another have, in recent history, done terrible things. Why do all the facts you have listed mean that the Thai coup had anthing to do with religion (and incidentally the principal religion is Buddism).

 

 

 

I am well aware that you are not making a personal point against muslims or islam, as I was not making a personal point about catholicism. The fact still remains that even if the entire population of Thailand were atheist there could still have been a corrupt president and there could still have been a coup, so why bring religion into it at all?

[Guest GhostRanger]

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!!

 

 

 

Disclaimer: I'm answering your question not making a personal point.

 

 

 

The reason everyone does this is because in the last 50 years Muslims:

 

 

 

1) Bombed the London underground railways in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

2) Attacked Spain in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

3) Flew airplanes into the twin towers, the pentagon, and had intentions to fly more planes into other buildings in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

4) Attacked the USS Cole in October 2000 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

5) Bombed the US embasies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

6) Bombed a US Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia in 1996 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

7) Killed 5 Americans with a car bomb in 1995 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

8) Bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

9) Bombedpassenger jet Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

10) Bombed a West Berlin discotheque that was frequented by US service-men in 1986 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

11) Seized an Italian Cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, and killed a sixty-nine year old American in 1985 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

12) Blew up the US Marine barracks in Beruit in 1983 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

13) Bombed the US embassy in Beruit in 1982 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

14) Stormed the US embassy in Iran and held the American embassy staff hostage for 444 days in 1979 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

15) Slaughtered the Jewish Olympians in 1972 in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

Once again, I'm not making a personal point. I'm just answering your question.

 

 

 

Oh because christians are so pure and full of love.

 

 

 

Serious you people make me sick

 

 

 

Look at what christians and westerners have done to the middle east and africa in the last 2000 years.

 

 

 

1. Raped Jerusalem - In the name of YOUR religion

 

 

 

2. Raped Africa - In the name of YOUR religion ( GOD AND COUNTRY)

 

 

 

3.Umm the vatican has killed how many people in the name of YOUR religion.

 

 

 

4. Europeans pratically wiped out the amercian native indians, BECAUSE THEY DIDNT LIVE THERE WAY.

 

 

 

Im a westerner and personally feel we have the worst history in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously just because some countries don't run in a democarcy doesn't mean they are evil.

 

Look at all the conspiracys and murders probley commited by democratic countries.

 

 

 

The world is changing people HAVE to live with each other so why don't we put all this religion crap behind us and just try and get along.

 

 

 

This is to both you and the other guy that posted: Learn to read!

 

 

 

I said twice that I was not making a personal point, I was just answering the question. No where did I ever disagree with the point that it's wrong to characterize Muslims. No where did I say Islam wasn't as peaceful as Christianity. No where. darkmage wnated to know why people characterize Muslims and so I told him.

 

 

 

I never said I agreed or disagreed with the reasoning, I just stated what the reasoning is.

 

 

 

Grow the hell up before you start blasting me Mr. Michael Allen. And while you're growing, learn how to read when someone writes a disclaimer and then repeats it at the end of the post.

 

 

 

EDIT: Michael Allen, while I don't disagree with your point (they are all good reasons to badly characterize Christianity just as I gave reasons to badly characterize Islam) I think it's sad that you could even give me exact years and details of the attacks like I did. It's sad how little effort you put into it.

 

 

 

I also think it's funny that in my post, I made it clear that I wasn't making a personal point, that I was just stating why people have prejudices, whereas you clearly showed your prejudice against Christianity. I was making an objective point that I never said I agreed with, and you showed your prejudice by making a personal prejudice point. Oh the irony! Once again another tip.it poster makes himself look like a fool!

 

 

 

(Let me guess, your reponse to my post is going to be another emotional rant where you yell about Christians. I eagerly await it as I'm sure some of my tip.it friends do too as well. We love a good laugh. Continue on.)

[S_C_Stunner]

Right now I have alot of respect for Buddhists. What major trouble did they caused these days?

[apinagez]

Is that a bird? Is that a plane? NO! That's GhostRanger getting in another argument!

[Guest GhostRanger]

Is that a bird? Is that a plane? NO! That's GhostRanger getting in another argument!

 

 

 

I wouldn't want to disappoint my fans, now would I?

[dogfever]

 

 

 

This is to both you and the other guy that posted: Learn to read!

 

 

 

I guess you are referring to me here so I'll continue.

 

 

 

I said twice that I was not making a personal point, I was just answering the question. No where did I ever disagree with the point that it's wrong to characterize Muslims. No where did I say Islam wasn't as peaceful as Christianity. No where. darkmage wnated to know why people characterize Muslims and so I told him.

 

 

 

WHY DOES EVERYONE REFER TO THEIR RELIGIONS!! Can't he just be a crazy man who just happens to be Muslim!! Please look at them as an individual not relating to the religion. Sorry....

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, that sucks for Thailand.

 

 

 

What darkmage actually asked was the same as I am asking below, which is: what does this have to do with religion? He did not ask which facts people select when justifying a prejudice against muslims. He asked why religion is an issue in this instance. There are any number of reasons why some people dislike the muslim faith (justified or not), none of these reasons are pertinient in the Thai coup. -- Why did the red car crash? Some people don't like red cars because... -- see no correlation.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Michael Allen, while I don't disagree with your point (they are all good reasons to badly characterize Christianity just as I gave reasons to badly characterize Islam) I think it's sad that you could even give me exact years and details of the attacks like I did. It's sad how little effort you put into it.

 

 

 

No they aren't. These were individuals operating on their own motivations. You cannot ascribe the actions of a few to beliefs of the many. You might as well say 'this man is violent therefore all men are violent' or 'this car is red therefore all cars are red.' This is simply a false arguement. You cannot 'characterise' a religion in the same way that you cannot characterise a race beyond some very basic physical facts.

 

 

 

I also think it's funny that in my post, I made it clear that I wasn't making a personal point, that I was just stating why people have prejudices, whereas you clearly showed your prejudice against Christianity. I was making an objective point that I never said I agreed with, and you showed your prejudice by making a personal prejudice point. Oh the irony! Once again another tip.it poster makes himself look like a fool!

 

 

 

 

I am well aware that you are not making a personal point against muslims or islam, as I was not making a personal point about catholicism.

 

 

 

So I guess I already learnt to read then.

 

 

 

 

 

(Let me guess, your reponse to my post is going to be another emotional rant where you yell about Christians. I eagerly await it as I'm sure some of my tip.it friends do too as well. We love a good laugh. Continue on.)

 

 

 

Well, I don't think my views on Christianity or Islam, or yours for that matter are really the point of this arguement. For the record I believe in neither. However, whilst you were lecturing me on my reading ability you did fail to answer my posted question:

 

 

 

The fact still remains that even if the entire population of Thailand were atheist there could still have been a corrupt president and there could still have been a coup, so why bring religion into it at all?