the problem is not the guy burning the korans. korans are books made of paper, that can easily be reproduced. The problem is with the muslims in Afghanistan who kill innocent people because a collection of pieces of paper was burnt. End of story. That is the problem that needs to be addressed, not the loon in the U.S. who burnt the paper. Taking the focus off of the real problem...is the real problem. For far too long people have tip toed around murderers, rapists and torturers because we don't want to stir them up. That needs to end. The problem is people who are murdering people over the burning of a book, not the book burning.
12 killed in attack on U.N. compound in northern Afghanistan
- Thread starter Nomad
- Start date
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Some artist dipped the image of my God in a vat of urine. I didn't feel the burning desire to go around cutting off heads. If I did would Andres Serrano have shared the blame?
Is this the "Christians don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose" philosophy?
[yt]lBiKHqeFPws[/yt]
Is this the "Christians don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose" philosophy?
[yt]lBiKHqeFPws[/yt]
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
there is no excuse, no justification, these are barbaric animals we are dealing with, and anyone who denies that is friggin delusional
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.
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.
Pretty much, especially if it was read and caused mushrooms to grow in some of these places where they keep their heads in dark dank places.
Nomad, where did you stand on the Abu Ghraib photos, and now the kill team photos being released by the press?
OP
Nomad
Master Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #29
I think they're abhorrent actions on the part of individuals, and definitely don't help the stated mission of the troops in the area. I also think neither have any relevance whatsoever to the original topic.
Inciting people to riot and/or violence are actually crimes in most places. This is exactly what was done here, and IMHO Terry Jones has the blood of the innocent victims of this (again) predictable violence on his hands.
Either way, I'm done banging my head against this brick wall. I'd be fascinated to find out exactly what color the sky is in your worlds. I prefer to live in the real world, where demanding that the bad guys "play nice" (and by your rules) generally doesn't actually work... That's kind of why they're the bad guys...
See, here is where I disagree with the 'blood on his hands' bit.
Bush has blood on his hands. He ordered the invasion of Iraq, putting into motion a series of events that led to over 200,000 people dying.
Obama has blood on his hands. He shifted US troops to Afghanistan, resulting in an increase in deaths to US service personnel, as well as Afghan civilians.
Jones however, did not order a single person into harms way. He neither ordered the protesters to protest, nor did he instruct them to assault and kill. He did not order the people killed into harms way. No, the people killed were there by their choices, not Jones. The people who did the killing, did so by their own choice.
They choose to kill. They made the choice to express their outrage in that fashion.
Jones is not responsible for the choices the killers made, any more than I would be responsible if my son knocked up his girlfriend or went on a tri-stage pokemon sausage making rant.
The killers had choices. Jones was at no time in control of them.
To insist that his actions several thousand miles away from where people who he has never interacted with killed others who he never interacted with is his fault and he should be guilty...that's not right. If I choose to take offense here and go murder a jogger in the park....whose blood is that on?
Bush has blood on his hands. He ordered the invasion of Iraq, putting into motion a series of events that led to over 200,000 people dying.
Obama has blood on his hands. He shifted US troops to Afghanistan, resulting in an increase in deaths to US service personnel, as well as Afghan civilians.
Jones however, did not order a single person into harms way. He neither ordered the protesters to protest, nor did he instruct them to assault and kill. He did not order the people killed into harms way. No, the people killed were there by their choices, not Jones. The people who did the killing, did so by their own choice.
They choose to kill. They made the choice to express their outrage in that fashion.
Jones is not responsible for the choices the killers made, any more than I would be responsible if my son knocked up his girlfriend or went on a tri-stage pokemon sausage making rant.
The killers had choices. Jones was at no time in control of them.
To insist that his actions several thousand miles away from where people who he has never interacted with killed others who he never interacted with is his fault and he should be guilty...that's not right. If I choose to take offense here and go murder a jogger in the park....whose blood is that on?
The press was warned that the photos of Abu Ghraib would cause problems for our soldiers around the world as well as any civillians who might get caught up in the anti-american violence those pictures would inspire, much like the burning of the korans. The difference is, the koran burning was so far a one time event while Abu Ghraib was front page news for weeks. The press new the possibility, much like the guy burning the korans, and they were so determined to attack Bush and undermine the war they published the photos anyway. there was no cover up in Abu Ghraib. the military had already begun the investigations into the misconduct. The photos were put out there without regard to the consequences. I am not into censoring the press. They should know when they need to be responsible and how to tell that same story in a responsible way. Your original post said that the Koran burner was respnsible for the deaths in Afghanistan. Would you say that the deaths that resulted from the posting of those photos are on the hands of those editors and reporters?
We now have the kill team photos, rumored to be in the thousands. Are the reporters in Der Spiegal, and the rolling stone and their editors going to be responsible for any deaths generated by the release of those photos?
We now have the kill team photos, rumored to be in the thousands. Are the reporters in Der Spiegal, and the rolling stone and their editors going to be responsible for any deaths generated by the release of those photos?
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
blaming anyone other than the barbarians that think cutting someone's head off is a legit response to being offended is ignorant
Well, consider you are visiting a psych ward. You are told that patient X will have homicidal rages if he sees a picture of a sheep.
So what do you do?
You draw a sheep, because it's innocent, right?! And are surprised when patient X is taking apart the joint?
maybe Mr Pastor Oblivious is lucky that no US citizens were involve....I am sure there is an ambulance chaser somewhere...
But wait, no, his ignorant behavior is covered under the premise that those muslims are crazy and he has the right to do what he did, screw the danger he put other people in. It's the patriotic thing to do, right!
So what do you do?
You draw a sheep, because it's innocent, right?! And are surprised when patient X is taking apart the joint?
maybe Mr Pastor Oblivious is lucky that no US citizens were involve....I am sure there is an ambulance chaser somewhere...
But wait, no, his ignorant behavior is covered under the premise that those muslims are crazy and he has the right to do what he did, screw the danger he put other people in. It's the patriotic thing to do, right!
Wouldn't the world be a really great place if we could just get people to stop doing things that are offensive to others?
How great would that world be?
No one, ever offending someone else so that they would have to kill them, attack them, or destroy their property.
Because of course, when you are offended, you have no choice but to do one of those things.
How nice would this no-offense world be?
This world, where everyone is safely surrounded by soft sound absorbing padding, strapped down lest they make a gesture that offends, silenced lest they utter a word that offends, immobilized lest they move in an offensive way, deafened lest they hear something that offends, breathing only carefully filtered and sterile air lest they smell something that offends and of course blinded lest they see something that offends, kept in utter silence and utter darkness.
What a true paradise this world, this non-offensive world would be.
How great would that world be?
No one, ever offending someone else so that they would have to kill them, attack them, or destroy their property.
Because of course, when you are offended, you have no choice but to do one of those things.
How nice would this no-offense world be?
This world, where everyone is safely surrounded by soft sound absorbing padding, strapped down lest they make a gesture that offends, silenced lest they utter a word that offends, immobilized lest they move in an offensive way, deafened lest they hear something that offends, breathing only carefully filtered and sterile air lest they smell something that offends and of course blinded lest they see something that offends, kept in utter silence and utter darkness.
What a true paradise this world, this non-offensive world would be.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA, I think I do detect a hint of sarcasm.
But generally speaking it's called manners. You don't go out of your way to pi$$ people off. And lighting a fuse and then pointing at others to put out the fire...I have ZERO sympathy for those folks.
You play ball in the house, chances are you knock something down, you throw a rock into a lake, there will be ripples. You diss Islam, some equivalent to the Faux news consumer some place out east will burst a gasket. It's almost like a law of physics.
More than a hint.
I wonder though...if the people killing others people over a book being burned by an asshat in Florida, are just as upset over the dozens of other copies of that same book, burned when rockets and mortar rounds slammed into homes in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, or were shredded by machine gun fire and tracer round on the battle field, or incinerated in flaming jet fuel when 19 lunatics crashed 4 hijacked planes?
I honestly think South Park pegged this stupidity right.
I wonder though...if the people killing others people over a book being burned by an asshat in Florida, are just as upset over the dozens of other copies of that same book, burned when rockets and mortar rounds slammed into homes in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, or were shredded by machine gun fire and tracer round on the battle field, or incinerated in flaming jet fuel when 19 lunatics crashed 4 hijacked planes?
I honestly think South Park pegged this stupidity right.
yorkshirelad
Master Black Belt
This is my take on things. Where do we draw the line with our individual freedoms? Many men have risked their lives and indeed died, so that we have the freedom of expression, speech and religion. Many on this forum would give up those freedoms for fear of an oppressive, backward group of idiots who believe in a ludicous, hateful ideology. I would like any one of you to blame Planned Parenthood for some Christian wingnut bombing an abortion clinic.
This country is becoming weak because of the ideology of so called progressives. These progressives would be the first to get the chop if Islam was to get its hateful hooks into our society. Think about it, What happens to gays in Iran? What happens to women who so much as complain about their husband's affairs in Afghanistan? How many planned Parenthoods would be allowed to stay open?
I honestly think it's detestable that some of you blame a preacher who burned a book for the deaths of innocents, killed by murderous backward scumbags.
This country is becoming weak because of the ideology of so called progressives. These progressives would be the first to get the chop if Islam was to get its hateful hooks into our society. Think about it, What happens to gays in Iran? What happens to women who so much as complain about their husband's affairs in Afghanistan? How many planned Parenthoods would be allowed to stay open?
I honestly think it's detestable that some of you blame a preacher who burned a book for the deaths of innocents, killed by murderous backward scumbags.
But by your account the wing nut bomb thrower is then responsible for the women dyining during backstreet abortions with rusty coat hangers...(not to mention that PP does other things, too)
But it seems a lot of people secretly agree with him.
I don't think it is a discussion of whether the killings were just. I am sure we all agree they are not.
The thing is, you do something you know sets somebody off (and don't bring PP into this. because it's totally different. Since providing women with services is not done to poke a finger into somebody's eye. Burning a book has no other purpose) don't hold out for other's to put out the flames.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
I don't understand your point. What is it that "should be done" (or should have been stopped) here and how should it have been done? Should we outlaw Koran burning? As long as we throw in Bibles, Crucifixes and flags too? Should we craft some "Let the Wookie win" laws where we can't exercise our rights because it may offend someone who could do violence?
