12 killed in attack on U.N. compound in northern Afghanistan

[Archangel M]

I think that the people who actually killed people bear more scrutinity than some "nobody" who burned a book.

If some screwball pastor of a "church" that numbers in the Tens of people has the "power" to cause an international incident I think that it speaks more to the instability of a country/people/religious faction who would choose to kill any westerner in the area than it really does to the "responsibility" of the pastor who burned a book.

And this was not some "small group" of zelots. This was a street riot.

 

[fangjian]

I think that the people who actually killed people bear more scrutinity than some "nobody" who burned a book.

If some screwball pastor of a "church" that numbers in the Tens of people has the "power" to cause an international incident I think that it speaks more to the instability of a country/people/religious faction who would choose to kill any westerner in the area than it really does to the "responsibility" of the pastor who burned a book.

And this was not some "small group" of zelots. This was a street riot.

Because destroying people is WAY less offensive than destroying a copy of a book.

Well I better not hear of someone in Afghanistan destroying a copy of Principia Mathematica or Pale Blue Dot, 'cause me an all of my other nerd friends will FREAK OUT IN THE STREETS!!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that the people who actually killed people bear more scrutinity than some "nobody" who burned a book.

Answer this question. If he had not burned the book, would those people who were murdered be alive today? If the answer is 'yes', then looking at the purpose of the book burning is at least as important as looking at the murderers who committed the murders.

How does a 'nobody' burn a book which results in multiple murders being committed half a world away?

If some screwball pastor of a "church" that numbers in the Tens of people has the "power" to cause an international incident I think that it speaks more to the instability of a country/people/religious faction who would choose to kill any westerner in the area than it really does to the "responsibility" of the pastor who burned a book.

I said nothing about responsibility of Terry Jones. I pointed out that he intended the consequences that he got. Do you deny this?

And this was not some "small group" of zelots. This was a street riot.

As if that makes a difference in a population that numbers in the billions who did not riot.

I pointed out the chess player in this particular chess match, and I pointed out exactly how you happen to be playing the part of the pawn. Rather than take issue with my assessment, you seem content to play your assigned role. So mote it be.

 

[Archangel M]

Sure, Jones is an idiot...so what?

The fact remains that there are entire nations that have the killing of rape victims as "law". That flog 14 yo girs to death and will go on a murderous rampage over a comic or some American idiot who burned a book.

Saying that there is some form of equivalence between the two is problematic IMO.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sure, Jones is an idiot...so what?

I didn't say that. I didn't even imply it. I asked a question. Would the murder victims be alive today if Jones had not burned the Koran? Would they have been murdered if Jones had burned a Bible or a Sears catalog?

If you agree that those murder victims would be alive if Jones had not burned the Koran, then you must agree that Jones played a part in this situation. In fact, he was the main actor; nothing would have happened without his planned action which he obviously knew would result in the actions that occurred.

Idiot, genius, it doesn't matter. He's the person who was holding the match that lit the fire, a fire he intended to be lit. His actions deserve scrutiny and comment.

The fact remains that there are entire nations that have the killing of rape victims as "law". That flog 14 yo girs to death and will go on a murderous rampage over a comic or some American idiot who burned a book.

Obfuscation. Stay on subject.

Saying that there is some form of equivalence between the two is problematic IMO.

I said no such thing. I said that Jones set the stage, he lit the fuse, he got the result he wanted. I pointed out that he not only intended that people would be murdered, he also intended that people would be taking sides for or against the murderers instead of looking at Jones' intent. You not only fell for it hook, line, and sinker, but even when it is made clear that you're being played for a fool, you insist that the best course of action is to continue to dance to the tune Jones plays.

I just listened to an interview with Jones. He was asked his intent. He said he never intended anyone to die, he intended to prove that there "is a radical element within Islam." Tell me, was anyone not aware of that? Did that need to be proven? Is Jones a duly-elected representative or military leader whose duty is to point out to us that there is a "radical element within Islam?"

Furthermore, how does one "prove that there is a radical element within Islam" without the murders taking place? In other words, if he had burned the Koran and no one had rioted or killed any innocent people, he would be proving the opposite; so clearly he INTENDED that people die at the hands of murderous religious nutjobs, which is what happened.

Yes, there is a radical element within Islam. I think that has been made abundantly clear to everyone in the civilized world, for the last ten years at the very minimum. There was nothing that needed to be proven in that regard.

What Terry Jones wanted was for people to die. He took an action that virtually guaranteed that people would die. He further set the stage for people such as yourself to become entangled in assigning responsibility to the murderers or defending them rather than looking at the puppet master himself. He pulled the strings, you danced. Doesn't that bother you at all? It certainly would me.

 

[granfire]

Sure, Jones is an idiot...so what?

The fact remains that there are entire nations that have the killing of rape victims as "law". That flog 14 yo girs to death and will go on a murderous rampage over a comic or some American idiot who burned a book.

Saying that there is some form of equivalence between the two is problematic IMO.

I do believe the law did not mandate such things. However the perpetrators did what they knew they can get away with.

That is no different from the people burning down moscs in the US or the KKK killing blacks and civil rights workers back then. Either is illegal, but for the time being they can get away with it.

 

[Twin Fist]

Terry Jones intended for people to be murdered as a result of his burning of a Koran.

are you a mind reader or just guessing?

 

[billc]

Then the editors and reporters who first printed and then ran the Abu Ghraib story, 24/7 for month also intended to have people die. They bear as much responsibility in the way they covered that story as this guy did burning the Koran. In fact, they are probably more culpable because they are professional journalists who were warned that the release of the pictures would cause problems for our servicemen.
They could have simply reported the story, just the facts, since the investigation was already ongoing and the press was late to the story.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Don't you just love the appeasement of Islamic terrorists? Keep going people! I would like to hear who was to blame for the bombing of the Penguin bookshop in York? Maybe Salman Rushdie was to blame, or the Penguin itself for publishing the Satanic Verses.
Who was responsible for the WTC attack? Maybe and according to Ward Churchill, it was the "little Eichmann's" who worked there. Who was to blame for the US embassy bombings? Well of course that was us US citizens collectively. How insensitive of us to not convert to Islam as a nation, what bastards we are.

these Islamic F***tards will kill and attempt to kill us as long as they and we live, plain and simple and the only people to blame are the people that send suicideal bombers in to kill innocents.

Appeasement turns my stomach, people don't seem to learn a lesson from not too distant history!

 

[yorkshirelad]

are you a mind reader or just guessing?

No, Bill just knows that salman Rushdie intended for people to die when he wrote the Satanic Verses. Bill thinks we should abandon our freedoms so that muslim terrorists won't hate and hurt us. I'm going to send him a prayer mat and a compass so that he has no trouble facing Mecca.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

are you a mind reader or just guessing?

Neither. I am using pure cold logic.

Fact: Jones has stated that his intent was to prove "that there is a radical element within Islam." He said that - now all I have to do is demonstrate by what means he intended to do that.

Did he intend to demonstrate that there is a radical element within Islam by having them FAIL to respond violently to his burning of the Koran? Does that make sense to you? If he burned the Koran and that 'radical element' didn't rise up and commit some atrocities, he would have failed completely to prove what he stated he intended to prove.

So, it is clear - and simple logic dictates this - that Jones intended for the 'radical element' to commit murder. Which they did. He proved his point. He also intended for people to be murdered - if it had not, there would have been no other way for him to prove the point he stated he wanted to prove.

He wanted them to demonstrate how radical they are, and they obliged him. He proved his point. QED, he intended for them to commit murder.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Then the editors and reporters who first printed and then ran the Abu Ghraib story, 24/7 for month also intended to have people die. They bear as much responsibility in the way they covered that story as this guy did burning the Koran. In fact, they are probably more culpable because they are professional journalists who were warned that the release of the pictures would cause problems for our servicemen.
They could have simply reported the story, just the facts, since the investigation was already ongoing and the press was late to the story.

Again - I am not talking about responsibility. I am talking about intent.

Reporters who break stories of atrocities want to sell newspapers. Whether the Muslim world explodes in violence is not much more than a side effect for them. One might, however, argue that particularly evil newspapers might intend for that kind of violence to happen because THAT sells newspapers too. I'll go with the assumption that the KISS principle is in effect for newspapers as well as Jones.

With regard to the reporters who reported on Jones; as it turned out, only a few people even showed up to his second, completed, book-burning. Many major news outlets refused to attend his press conference or his book-burning. I don't know if I'll put that down to altruism, but I'll accept a more cynical argument that the major news outlets realized they would be blamed in the backlash just as you say.

I think I'm not being clear here, but I'm not sure how anyone is failing to read the simple statements I'm making. I am not defending the murderers. Have you seen me do anything of the kind? They're responsible for their own actions. They are murderers. They deserve to be lined up against a wall and shot. They're animals, and there is no excuse for them. DID I MAKE THAT CLEAR?

With regard to Jones, he is not criminally, nor, I suspect, civilly liable for his actions. They were clearly within the realm of the 1st Amendment in the USA. As much as I think he's an asshat of epic proportions, I'd gladly defend his right to burn a stack of freaking Korans. Or Bibles. Or US flags. Or Sears catalogs. He has the right to make political statements. DID I MAKE THAT CLEAR ALSO?

What I said was that Jones intended what happened. That's all. He planned this, he lit the fuse, it happened. It wasn't rocket science to figure out cause and effect. I am saying, as clearly as I can, that anyone who becomes part of the pro/anti Jones argument is his tool. He's pulling the strings, you're dancing. If you like that role, yay you.

 

[granfire]

Just one thing here:
A political statement by any other than the head of state with the power to declare war or emergency deployment of troops does not involve real blood being spilled.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just one thing here:
A political statement by any other than the head of state with the power to declare war or emergency deployment of troops does not involve real blood being spilled.

I do not understand your point.

 

[Twin Fist]

so...you're guessing.

ok, just say so.

but here is the thing. It doesnt matter what he intended. The animals that comitted murder are still animals and still need to be wiped off the face of the planet

Neither. I am using pure cold logic.

Fact: Jones has stated that his intent was to prove "that there is a radical element within Islam." He said that - now all I have to do is demonstrate by what means he intended to do that.

Did he intend to demonstrate that there is a radical element within Islam by having them FAIL to respond violently to his burning of the Koran? Does that make sense to you? If he burned the Koran and that 'radical element' didn't rise up and commit some atrocities, he would have failed completely to prove what he stated he intended to prove.

So, it is clear - and simple logic dictates this - that Jones intended for the 'radical element' to commit murder. Which they did. He proved his point. He also intended for people to be murdered - if it had not, there would have been no other way for him to prove the point he stated he wanted to prove.

He wanted them to demonstrate how radical they are, and they obliged him. He proved his point. QED, he intended for them to commit murder.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

so...you're guessing.

No, I am not guessing. I took Jone's stated intent and applied the only possible logic that provided the outcome he said he wanted. That's deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a hypothesis; essentially a guess.

ok, just say so.

Why would I say a thing was something it was not?

but here is the thing. It doesnt matter what he intended. The animals that comitted murder are still animals and still need to be wiped off the face of the planet

Have you seen me say anything different, at any point in this discussion? I'd really like an answer here. Several people have told me what I supposedly believe by insinuation or direct statement, but without seeming rude, I'm trying to point out that's not what I said. In fact, let me be more clear and rude on top of it. Anyone who thinks I hold the murderers as less responsible because they were goaded is a liar. Flat out, sir, a liar. I never said it, never believed it.

Now you listen to me. Here's the 'thing'. The thing is that despite the fact that dangerous religious lunatics are dangerous religious lunatics and must be dealt with as such, there was a precipitating factor here. Jones.

 

[Cryozombie]

Hey guys, FWIW, if you Vote Republican or Democrat in 2012, Hundreds of angry tea partiers are going to kill all the worlds polar bears.

Just so you know. You have been warned, and it will be your fault.

 

[Master Dan]

They are religious fanatics with a different moral compass than our own.

If Nomad walked down the street in a short skirt and FM pumps, that doesn't justify me driving to Texas and setting Twin Fist on fire. Or vice versa.

Some idiot in Florida burning a book of fiction doesn't justify some fanatic on the other side of the world to murder a random stranger in some bizarre idea of 'revenge'.

"Hey! Infidel! Yeah, you pissed me off! So to get even with you, I will murder this total stranger, this person you don't know, who means nothing to you! Because that makes us even somehow."

Yeah. Makes sense to me. Not.

That's the problem when you believe in fictional characters and seek them out for reasons to live. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go kick the old lady down the street and pee in her window because a preacher in Toledo burned a copy of Harry Potter.

Uhhh just asking but do you often think about Nomad walking down the street in a short skirt and FM pumps?

 

[WC_lun]

There is plenty of responsibilty to go around. First, the pastor knew that the liklihood of violence erupting in response to his little stunt. I would say he was counting on violence to erupt. Yes, he is free to burn the Koran in the US. No, he is not legally responsible for the deaths. However, he knew that violence was the likley response to his action and deaths could result, yet he burned the Koran anyway to make a point. He chose making a point at the risk of other people's lives. In my mind that means this guy is morally bankrupt.

The imams who instigated these killings share a full load of responsibility for this as well. Like Jones, they knew the likely result of thier actions would be violence and people would be killed. That didn't matter because they too wanted to make a point and innocent lives at risk did not matter.

The Iraqis who carried out the murder are responsible for sure. How do you actually kill someone over something as inane as an attention seeking bigot oceans away? Not only are they now murderers, but for people who already view them as less than human now have thier "proof."

Stupid, bigotted, ignorant, arrogant, foolish, and selfish are good words to describe avery player in this travesty.

 

[Nomad]

Uhhh just asking but do you often think about Nomad walking down the street in a short skirt and FM pumps?

What??? I could pull off the outfit if I tried Might have to shave the legs first though...