PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Petraeus Says Quran Burning Endangers War Effort .


Pages : [1] 2

petegz28
04-03-2011, 06:54 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576240643831942006.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

KABUL—The Quran burning by a Florida church, which sparked three days of deadly rioting in Afghanistan, poses new dangers for the U.S.-led war effort against the Taliban, coalition commander U.S. Gen. David Petraeus warned in an interview.

Gen. Petraeus, who commands some 150,000 U.S. and allied troops here, spoke after Afghan rioters angered by reports of the sacrilege sacked the United Nations compound in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif, killing seven foreigners, and went on a lethal rampage in the southern city of Kandahar, waving Taliban flags.

The deadly rioting, which the Taliban say erupted spontaneously, has shocked the international community and highlighted the vulnerability of the embattled Afghan government. Urban mob violence against Western targets adds a disturbing new threat in a country that is fighting a mostly rural insurgency, and where foreign and local security forces are ill-prepared for riot control.

"Every security force leader's worst nightmare is being confronted by essentially a mob, if you will, especially one that can be influenced by individuals that want to incite violence, who want to try to hijack passions, in this case, perhaps understandable passions," Gen. Petraeus said in the Sunday interview. "Obviously it's an additional serious security challenge in a country that faces considerable security challenges."

Back in September, when Terry Jones of the World Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., first announced his intention to burn Islam's holy book, Gen. Petraeus publicly urged the preacher to abandon the plan, saying it would be exploited by the Taliban and endanger the lives of American soldiers. Rev. Jones's church shelved the idea at the time. But then he reversed course and his church held a "trial" of the Quran and incinerated the book in a videotaped ceremony March 20.

"This was a surprise," Gen. Petraeus said. The Quran burning in Florida, he added, was "hateful, extremely disrespectful and enormously intolerant."

View Full Image

Reuters

Protesters shout anti-U.S. slogans during a demonstration in Jalalabad province Sunday. Around 1,000 people blocked the main highway from Kabul to Jalalabad and burned U.S. flags, driven by anger at the actions of militant Christian preacher Terry Jones, who supervised the burning of a copy of the Koran in front of about 50 people at a church in Florida on March 20, according to his website.
.Gen. Petraeus, U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and other Western envoys Sunday met President Hamid Karzai to discuss the security crisis caused by the Florida incident. While Gen. Petraeus said he had no doubt that Mr. Karzai is taking the situation seriously, some Western officials have complained that the Afghan president himself has exacerbated the tensions with his pronouncements on the issue.

Most Afghans learned about the Quran burning in Florida only when Mr. Karzai on March 24 condemned the act as "a crime against the religion and the entire Muslim nation," called on the U.S. and the U.N. to bring the perpetrators to justice and demanded "a satisfactory response to the resentment and anger of over 1.5 billion Muslims around the world."

Following Sunday's meeting with Gen. Petraeus and the ambassadors, Mr. Karzai requested in a new statement that "the U.S. government, Senate and Congress clearly condemn [Rev. Jones'] dire action and avoid such incidents in the future." Mr. Karzai issued this demand even though President Barack Obama has already described the Quran burning as "an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry"—adding that "to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."

Friday's protest march on the U.N. compound in Mazar-e-Sharif followed a fiery sermon by government-paid clerics in that city's main mosque. By Saturday, however, demonstrators in Kandahar chanted "Death to Karzai" in addition to "Death to America." Nine Afghans were killed and more than 80 injured in Kandahar on Saturday, as protesters attempted to march on the U.N. officers there; shootouts erupted as they were stopped by Afghan security forces.

In fresh Kandahar protests on Sunday, two Afghans, including a child, were killed and 40 were wounded, according to provincial officials. A crowd of about 600 pelted with rocks the headquarters of the provincial governor, shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the slaves of the infidels."

"We cannot see the difference between that man in Florida and the American soldiers here," said Karimullah, a 25-year-old religious student who, like many Afghans, goes by one name and took part in Sunday's Kandahar protests. "They are killing our people here while in the U.S. they burn the Holy Quran. America just wants to humiliate the Muslim world."

—Muhib Habibi and Habib Khan Totakhil contributed to this article.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 06:56 PM
This is total bullshit. While I wouldn't say that burning a Koran is smart, this is America. And if the tolerant and peacful muslims revert to chopping heads off because of 1 guy then fuck them all up the ass. They want to hold all accountable for the action of 1 yet they want us to differentiate between them.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 06:57 PM
"We cannot see the difference between that man in Florida and the American soldiers here," said Karimullah, a 25-year-old religious student who, like many Afghans, goes by one name and took part in Sunday's Kandahar protests. "They are killing our people here while in the U.S. they burn the Holy Quran. America just wants to humiliate the Muslim world."

Ok. well then fuck you. I don't think we should make an effort then to see the difference betwee the 9/11 terrorists and other muslims.

alnorth
04-03-2011, 07:00 PM
Well, sorry General. We cant do anything about burning that book and the more you mention it, the more press is written about it, the more likely it will be burned again.

Deal with it and stop whining. If some people in the middle east are going to freak out because some dude in Florida burns a holy book, then those people are primitive moronic savages.

HonestChieffan
04-03-2011, 07:02 PM
Its cool if you burn a flag. Not cool if you make insane islamist wackos mad.

chiefzilla1501
04-03-2011, 08:19 PM
This is total bullshit. While I wouldn't say that burning a Koran is smart, this is America. And if the tolerant and peacful muslims revert to chopping heads off because of 1 guy then **** them all up the ass. They want to hold all accountable for the action of 1 yet they want us to differentiate between them.

1) burning a sacred text is different from burning a flag
2) Don't pretend that there aren't christian extremists who do the same exact thing
3) Much as we bitch about liberal-skewed media, our media is a lot more fair and balanced than a muslim-state media which is probably heavily biased by radical opinions. I'm sure they're not communicating this like this as if it's just a rogue guy that doesn't represent America.

Saul Good
04-03-2011, 08:25 PM
1) burning a sacred text is different from burning a flag
2) Don't pretend that there aren't christian extremists who do the same exact thing
3) Much as we bitch about liberal-skewed media, our media is a lot more fair and balanced than a muslim-state media which is probably heavily biased by radical opinions. I'm sure they're not communicating this like this as if it's just a rogue guy that doesn't represent America.

You are incredibly full of shit. I could rip a page out of the Bible and wipe my ass with it, and I'd be more likely to get a public grant than be harmed by a Christian.

Brock
04-03-2011, 08:26 PM
2) Don't pretend that there aren't christian extremists who do the same exact thing.

LOL right.

|Zach|
04-03-2011, 08:36 PM
I don't know why the glaring differences between us and them get people all worked up.

|Zach|
04-03-2011, 08:37 PM
Ok. well then **** you. I don't think we should make an effort then to see the difference betwee the 9/11 terrorists and other muslims.

You love the lowest common denominator.

LiveSteam
04-03-2011, 08:40 PM
1) burning a sacred text is different from burning a flag
NOT TO ME IT AINT !!!!!!!! not when its the AMERICAN FLAG!

alnorth
04-03-2011, 08:48 PM
1) burning a sacred text is different from burning a flag

What makes a mass-produced inked blob of wood pulp sacred? Especially given that it wasn't even so much as prayed over than shrink-wrapped, boxed, shipped to a wal-mart, and sold?

Do you believe everything that is produced, shrink-wrapped, shipped to wal-mart, and sold is sacred? It would be one thing if some 1,000 year-old delicate relic were smashed and burned, but come on.

chiefsnorth
04-03-2011, 09:13 PM
1) burning a sacred text is different from burning a flag
2) Don't pretend that there aren't christian extremists who do the same exact thing
3) Much as we bitch about liberal-skewed media, our media is a lot more fair and balanced than a muslim-state media which is probably heavily biased by radical opinions. I'm sure they're not communicating this like this as if it's just a rogue guy that doesn't represent America.

Yeah, let us know the next time you hear of a Christian hacking people's heads off because someone else made fun of their beliefs.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 09:14 PM
You love the lowest common denominator.

I know, all muslims are not like that. I am sure only a few comitted the beheadings while several others just stood around and watched doing nothing at all to prevent the killings.

HonestChieffan
04-03-2011, 09:22 PM
I know, all muslims are not like that. I am sure only a few comitted the beheadings while several others just stood around and watched doing nothing at all to prevent the killings.

Some didnt watch. They had to set up tables for the hot dish potluck that evening.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 09:25 PM
Some didnt watch. They had to set up tables for the hot dish potluck that evening.

good point

HonestChieffan
04-03-2011, 09:34 PM
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/podapr3-550x332.jpg

Indonesia. One good place to save on Foreign Aid. Jihad your ass.

Amnorix
04-03-2011, 09:50 PM
It's great that random nobodies want to make the news or whatever by burning the Koran, and thereby put our soldiers in even more jeopardy. Great.

Whatever message you THINK you're sending, why don't you just STFD and STFU, you're not helping anything.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 10:04 PM
It's great that random nobodies want to make the news or whatever by burning the Koran, and thereby put our soldiers in even more jeopardy. Great.

Whatever message you THINK you're sending, why don't you just STFD and STFU, you're not helping anything.

That.

PornChief
04-03-2011, 10:04 PM
Thing is nobody there even knew about it until that Karzai clown mentioned it during a speech. Seems like he wanted to stir up some trouble.

PornChief
04-03-2011, 10:08 PM
I also have trouble seeing how anyone who insults Islam is responsible for the deaths of people killed by Muslims going into their default mode over the insult.

Jenson71
04-03-2011, 10:17 PM
This is total bullshit. While I wouldn't say that burning a Koran is smart, this is America. And if the tolerant and peacful muslims revert to chopping heads off because of 1 guy then fuck them all up the ass. They want to hold all accountable for the action of 1 yet they want us to differentiate between them.

Terry Jones is a jackass. Fuck him.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 10:21 PM
I also have trouble seeing how anyone who insults Islam is responsible for the deaths of people killed by Muslims going into their default mode over the insult.

The shithead with the fire fetish may not be responsible for the deaths of these people, but he sure as hell caused those deaths.

We all know very well their default mode. Burn a Qur'an and you can predict pretty accurately what will happen.

What essential statement was this assclown making that was worth the deaths of those people?

HonestChieffan
04-03-2011, 10:31 PM
All these guys have email, TV, iphones and stuff. Those caves are wired for sound. Florida may be a long way but news travels quick and beheaders are always on call

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:38 PM
The shithead with the fire fetish may not be responsible for the deaths of these people, but he sure as hell caused those deaths.

We all know very well their default mode. Burn a Qur'an and you can predict pretty accurately what will happen.

What essential statement was this assclown making that was worth the deaths of those people?

Which sort of underscores the underlying tone that they are not as tolerant and peacful as we are led to believe. I do not necessarily support what he did but this is America and he is entitled to do what he did.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 10:44 PM
This is total bullshit. While I wouldn't say that burning a Koran is smart, this is America. And if the tolerant and peacful muslims revert to chopping heads off because of 1 guy then **** them all up the ass. They want to hold all accountable for the action of 1 yet they want us to differentiate between them.

Well, you may not like what the general responsible for our brothers' and sisters' lives said, but you haven't said shit that proves him wrong. And I'd consider him the expert...

Because, he's dead right. And I seem to remember arguing that exact same position with you months ago, when you were making the assinine argument that burning a Quran helps the war effort. So I'll let you reflect on exactly how full of shit you are.

Thing is, some of us understand: this is real life. Not some dick swaggering, battle of civilizations game.

People are dying.

This deserves our most sober attention and our most serious passion. Not score settling.

chiefsnorth
04-03-2011, 10:46 PM
The shithead with the fire fetish may not be responsible for the deaths of these people, but he sure as hell caused those deaths.

We all know very well their default mode. Burn a Qur'an and you can predict pretty accurately what will happen.

What essential statement was this assclown making that was worth the deaths of those people?

The more devout already think it's positive when Americans are killed because America is an immoral infidel state. These kinds of things don't change their opinions, it just gives them capital to turn more of the average people into one of them.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:47 PM
Well, you may not like what the general responsible for our brothers' and sisters' lives said, but you haven't said shit that proves him wrong. And I'd consider him the expert...

Because, he's dead right. And I seem to remember arguing that exact same position with you months ago, when you were making the assinine argument that burning a Quran helps the war effort. So I'll let you reflect on exactly how full of shit you are.

Thing is, some of us understand: this is real life. Not some dick swaggering, battle of civilizations game.

People are dying.

This deserves our most sober attention and our most serious passion. Not score settling.

Well then go dig a hole and hide in it and don't ever mention anything at all that may upset the muslims because you might provide a reason for them to go chop someone's head off. In fact, we had better enact Sharia Law tomorrow so no muslims get the impression that we do not care for their religion. After all, it might lead to someone getting killed.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:48 PM
The shithead with the fire fetish may not be responsible for the deaths of these people, but he sure as hell caused those deaths.

We all know very well their default mode. Burn a Qur'an and you can predict pretty accurately what will happen.

What essential statement was this assclown making that was worth the deaths of those people?

He didn't cause those deaths. The people that did it caused it. Let's not start making victims out of the criminals. If anything the people that did this justified this nutjob.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:50 PM
Well, you may not like what the general responsible for our brothers' and sisters' lives said, but you haven't said shit that proves him wrong. And I'd consider him the expert...

Because, he's dead right. And I seem to remember arguing that exact same position with you months ago, when you were making the assinine argument that burning a Quran helps the war effort. So I'll let you reflect on exactly how full of shit you are.

Thing is, some of us understand: this is real life. Not some dick swaggering, battle of civilizations game.

People are dying.

This deserves our most sober attention and our most serious passion. Not score settling.

This is a classic example of someone who is ready to give up their Rights in the name of not upsetting the muslims.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:51 PM
Meanwhile someone takes a crucifix and shoves it in a jar of urine and we call it "art". But don't go buring a Koran cause it might piss off the muslims.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:52 PM
Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which is sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 10:53 PM
Well then go dig a hole and hide in it and don't ever mention anything at all that may upset the muslims because you might provide a reason for them to go chop someone's head off. In fact, we had better enact Sharia Law tomorrow so no muslims get the impression that we do not care for their religion. After all, it might lead to someone getting killed.

If the asshole in Florida had accomplished something with his little tantrum, we wouldn't be having the same discussion. But he didn't accomplish anything at all. Nothing. Not even a trivial victory of any sort whatsoever.

And people ****ing died.

Maybe I'm missing something.

chiefzilla1501
04-03-2011, 10:54 PM
Yeah, let us know the next time you hear of a Christian hacking people's heads off because someone else made fun of their beliefs.

You don't see Christians hacking people's heads off in the US because there isn't the same degree of lawlessness as there is in lesser developed countries.

I'm a Christian too. But there's a difference between a Christian and an extremist Christian. The same Christians who are so insane that they'll bomb abortion clinics and protest at soldiers' funerals because of their screwed up beliefs.

And yes... I dare you to wipe your ass with a bible page in the middle of the bible belt in front of a bunch of redneck bible thumpers. We'll see how far that gets you. I can guarantee you that if we had the same kind of legal code as they have in middle east countries, you'd get picked off with a gun before you could count to ten.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 10:55 PM
Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition,[1] which is sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, a United States Government agency that offers support and funding for artistic projects.

That shit again? Piss Christ every fucking time. Get over it.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:55 PM
If the asshole in Florida had accomplished something with his little tantrum, we wouldn't be having the same discussion. But he didn't accomplish anything at all. Nothing. Not even a trivial victory of any sort whatsoever.

And people ****ing died.

Maybe I'm missing something.

Again, I wouldn't have done what he did but this is America and it is his Right. What this guy did do is prove to a point that these people are not quite as peacful as we are told.

Let me ask you this, how many people do you think stood and watched or even cheered as these people were killed?

Are we to not ever offend Islam because we fear some sort of backlash?

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 10:56 PM
Well then go dig a hole and hide in it and don't ever mention anything at all that may upset the muslims because you might provide a reason for them to go chop someone's head off. In fact, we had better enact Sharia Law tomorrow so no muslims get the impression that we do not care for their religion. After all, it might lead to someone getting killed.

This is a classic example of someone who is ready to give up their Rights in the name of not upsetting the muslims.

Yours is a position of pissing and moaning.

Mine is a position of trying to locate a solution.

One of us is serious. The other is throwing a tantrum.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:56 PM
That shit again? Piss Christ every ****ing time. Get over it.

See, that's a double standard if you ask me. On one hand our Gov supports Piss Christ, on the other they tell us to be sensative to Islam.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 10:56 PM
He didn't cause those deaths.

I obviously disagree.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:56 PM
Yours is a position of pissing and moaning.

Mine is a position of trying to locate a solution.

One of us is serious. The other is throwing a tantrum.

WTF is your solution? We should restrict our Freedom of Speech?

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:58 PM
I obviously disagree.

So we don't place the blame on the criminal anymore? I am asking you seriously. Should we do nothing ever at all that may offend Islam because it might cause deaths?

chiefzilla1501
04-03-2011, 10:58 PM
What makes a mass-produced inked blob of wood pulp sacred? Especially given that it wasn't even so much as prayed over than shrink-wrapped, boxed, shipped to a wal-mart, and sold?

Do you believe everything that is produced, shrink-wrapped, shipped to wal-mart, and sold is sacred? It would be one thing if some 1,000 year-old delicate relic were smashed and burned, but come on.

You're looking at it from your lens, not someone who was born and raised to believe the stuff is sacred.

The value of a Michael Jordan rookie card is $82,000. That's just a piece of paper too. It's all about the value you attach to that piece of paper.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 10:58 PM
And once again, Patreus has made yet another argument of yours stand as naked and completely unsupported: that somehow burning Qurans helps the war effort.

Which is an argument you actually made.

The crawl out of your own delusions and into reality is not an easy one, and not a proud one, but we'll welcome you once you've done it.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:59 PM
Here is how it comes down...

One guy burns a Koran
Several Muslims kill and behead several innocent people because he burned a Koran

Now who is the nuttier of the two?

petegz28
04-03-2011, 10:59 PM
And once again, Patreus has made yet another argument of yours stand as naked and completely unsupported: that somehow burning Qurans helps the war effort.

Which is an argument you actually made.

The crawl out of your own delusions and into reality is not an easy one, and not a proud one, but we'll welcome you once you've done it.

Where did I ever say it helped the war effort? So is your solution then to kiss the ass of Islam during this war?

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 10:59 PM
WTF is your solution? We should restrict our Freedom of Speech?

It's that we should act in the best interests of the lives of an American army in harms way.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:01 PM
You're looking at it from your lens, not someone who was born and raised to believe the stuff is sacred.

The value of a Michael Jordan rookie card is $82,000. That's just a piece of paper too. It's all about the value you attach to that piece of paper.

Horseshit. While I don't stand here and say it wasn't an offending act, I don't think if someone beheaded someone over burning their Jordan rookie card would garner the same comments we are hearing in this thread.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:02 PM
Where did I ever say it helped the war effort?

Do you want me to pull up the quote?

Do you want to get face'd that bad?

Your argument was that terrorists try to hide in bodies of innocent Muslim populations. So burning a Quran would piss off more Muslims, making more of them terrorist sympathizers and less of them innocent.

Making it easier for us to carpet bomb them indiscriminately.

I'll dig up the thread if you want me to. But that piece of madness deserves to forever fall deep into the forum's history.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:03 PM
It's that we should act in the best interests of the lives of an American army in harms way.

In other words you would like to restrict our Right to Freedom of Speech against regarding Islam and Muslims?

I guess I missed it when Durbin and Sean Penn and others were traveling over to Iraq and basically bad mouthing our President and stuff? Hardly helpfull during a time of war, I am sure you would agree.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 11:03 PM
See, that's a double standard if you ask me. On one hand our Gov supports Piss Christ, on the other they tell us to be sensative to Islam.

Gee. I wonder why. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that no one is going to get beheaded over fucking Piss Christ.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 11:03 PM
In other words you would like to restrict our Right to Freedom of Speech against regarding Islam and Muslims?

I guess I missed it when Durbin and Sean Penn and others were traveling over to Iraq and basically bad mouthing our President and stuff? Hardly helpfull during a time of war, I am sure you would agree.

Fuck you and your other words. My words are on the screen. Any other words are in your pinhead.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:03 PM
Do you want me to pull up the quote?

Do you want to get face'd that bad?

Your argument was that terrorists try to hide in bodies of innocent Muslim populations. So burning a Quran would piss off more Muslims, making more of them terrorist sympathizers and less of them innocent.

Making it easier for us to carpet bomb them indiscriminately.

I'll dig up the thread if you want me to. But I'd rather that piece of madness deserves to forever fall deep into the forum's history.

If burning a Quran\Koran creates more terrorists then these people are not as tolerant as we are told they are.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:04 PM
So is your solution then to kiss the ass of Islam during this war?

It's that we should act in the best interests of the lives of an American army in harms way.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:04 PM
Gee. I wonder why. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that no one is going to get beheaded over ****ing Piss Christ.

Gee I wonder if that is because that is how truly tolerant people act?

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:05 PM
**** you and your other words. My words are on the screen. Any other words are in your pinhead.

Fuck you too. That was a reply to Direkshun, not you but obviously I must have struck a nerve, pinhead.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:06 PM
If burning a Quran\Koran creates more terrorists then these people are not as tolerant as we are told they are.

Congratulations on a complete sidestep and disowning of an insane argument you actually made.

We know what you are, pete. A petulant child, throwing a shitfit.

Taken less seriously as the days go by.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:06 PM
It's that we should act in the best interests of the lives of an American army in harms way.

So you condemn all the crap the Dems and Hollywood pulled while we were in full combat in Iraq under Bush?

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:07 PM
Congratulations on a complete sidestep and disowning of an insane argument you actually made.

We know what you are, pete. A petulant child, throwing a shitfit.

Taken less seriously as the days go by.

And we know what you are, an Obama suck up who would gladly turn over his Rights in the name of Obama. What people should do and what people have the Right to do are two different things. That doesn't change the fact that these people you and others keep insisting are so tolerant aren't quite so tolerant.

chiefzilla1501
04-03-2011, 11:08 PM
So we don't place the blame on the criminal anymore? I am asking you seriously. Should we do nothing ever at all that may offend Islam because it might cause deaths?

When your speech is completely intended to provoke a reaction from several enemy states who we are either at war with or in danger of being war with... When your speech has the power to increase the motivation for the enemy to strike with a terrorist attack... When there is a clear cause and effect between your action and increased fatalities to our troops overseas... When we're talking about enemy states who have leaders that are controlling the media and using speech like this as propaganda to fuel greater hatred against the U.S... When the speech is not a spontaneous exercise, but rather something done by a radical who was told of the security risk it would cause....

Sorry, I'm all for Freedom of Speech. But I also have several friends overseas who I'm worried sick about. I don't support freedom of speech that puts us in greater danger of terrorist attack.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:09 PM
So you condemn all the crap the Dems and Hollywood pulled while we were in full combat in Iraq under Bush?

I condemn most anything that unnecessarily puts our troops in harm's way.

Because I am a serious adult, who understands what's at stake.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:09 PM
When your speech is completely intended to provoke a reaction from several enemy states who we are either at war with or in danger of being war with... When your speech has the power to increase the motivation for the enemy to strike with a terrorist attack... When there is a clear cause and effect between your action and increased fatalities to our troops overseas... When we're talking about enemy states who have leaders that are controlling the media and using speech like this as propaganda to fuel greater hatred against the U.S... When the speech is not a spontaneous exercise, but rather something done by a radical who was told of the security risk it would cause....

Sorry, I'm all for Freedom of Speech. But I also have several friends overseas who I'm worried sick about. I don't support freedom of speech that puts us in greater danger of terrorist attack.

I support your friends and understand your worries. But the fact is they are fighting for the very Right that the dumbass in Florida exercised.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:09 PM
When your speech is completely intended to provoke a reaction from several enemy states who we are either at war with or in danger of being war with... When your speech has the power to increase the motivation for the enemy to strike with a terrorist attack... When there is a clear cause and effect between your action and increased fatalities to our troops overseas... When we're talking about enemy states who have leaders that are controlling the media and using speech like this as propaganda to fuel greater hatred against the U.S... When the speech is not a spontaneous exercise, but rather something done by a radical who was told of the security risk it would cause....

Sorry, I'm all for Freedom of Speech. But I also have several friends overseas who I'm worried sick about. I don't support freedom of speech that puts us in greater danger of terrorist attack.

Amen.

chiefzilla1501
04-03-2011, 11:09 PM
And we know what you are, an Obama suck up who would gladly turn over his Rights in the name of Obama. What people should do and what people have the Right to do are two different things. That doesn't change the fact that these people you and others keep insisting are so tolerant aren't quite so tolerant.

I don't think I understand how that makes sense, given that liberals are strong advocates for free speech.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:10 PM
I condemn most anything that unnecessarily puts our troops in harm's way.

Because I am a serious adult, who understands what's at stake.

I must have missed all your comments saying such during the Bush era of Iraq. :huh:

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:11 PM
I don't think I understand how that makes sense, given that liberals are strong advocates for free speech.

Liberals are strong advocates of Free Speech only when they agree with it. You either support Free Speech or you don't. Unlike Direkshun who would like to pick and choose what people can say and when they can say it.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 11:11 PM
**** you too. That was a reply to Direkshun, not you but obviously I must have struck a nerve, pinhead.

Absolutely right. My bad, dipshit.

trndobrd
04-03-2011, 11:12 PM
In other words you would like to restrict our Right to Freedom of Speech against regarding Islam and Muslims?

I guess I missed it when Durbin and Sean Penn and others were traveling over to Iraq and basically bad mouthing our President and stuff? Hardly helpfull during a time of war, I am sure you would agree.


I didn't see anyone say that the First Amendment should be restricted. Only that jackasses who intentionally fan hatred for the sole purpose getting some media attention should be publicly called out for putting American service member lives in more danger.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:12 PM
Amen.

Yes, we know, you would restrict someone from one of our greatest aspects that makes us America because you don't agree with it.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:13 PM
I must have missed all your comments saying such during the Bush era of Iraq. :huh:

Shrug. They're there. It's possible you missed them.

But you understand you're arguing against yourself.

You're condemning what idiots said back in the middle of the Iraq War, yet perfectly fine with what happened here. You even argued that what happened here helped the war effort, Pete.

You've unhinged, bud. It doesn't look good on you.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:13 PM
Absolutely right. My bad, dipshit.

No problem, turd nugget.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:13 PM
I didn't see anyone say that the First Amendment should be restricted. Only that jackasses who intentionally fan hatred for the sole purpose getting some media attention should be publicly called out for putting American service member lives in more danger.

Yup.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:14 PM
I didn't see anyone say that the First Amendment should be restricted. Only that jackasses who intentionally fan hatred for the sole purpose getting some media attention should be publicly called out for putting American service member lives in more danger.

Dude, that is Free Speech. You don't have to agree with it. I don't agree with what this guy did and wish he hadn't. But that is his Right.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:16 PM
The thing is, I don't think anybody in this thread is arguing that it shouldn't be his right to burn a Quran.

Are they? Has anybody?

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:17 PM
And such the worry about our soldiers lives coming from those who are so against interogation methods in the field and otherwise that may save the lives of our soldiers. Or the rules of engagement. WTF are you then? WTF were you when a commaning officer popped off a round to the side of a captured enemies head? He was reprimanded, the Left insisted on it yet the information the officer got from the captured enemy saved our troops from getting ambushed.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:18 PM
Nobody has made that argument. I just reread the thread. There's a few politicians, from Harry Reid to Lindsey Graham making that argument. But we're not.

We're arguing that it hurts the war effort. Like Patreus said.

You've miraculously come around to that point of view now, I hope. Rather than continuing to argue that burning the Quran is a boon to beating terrorists.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:19 PM
The thing is, I don't think anybody in this thread is arguing that it shouldn't be his right to burn a Quran.

Are they? Has anybody?

You sure seem to put up that argument. When we are blaming him for the deaths instead of the ones who actually committed the crime something is wrong. How far does it go? We have had people killed because of cartoon drawings in regards to Islam. We had South Park episodes taken off in fear of offending Islam.

So how far is it we are supposed to go to appease the tolerant muslims?

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:21 PM
Nobody has made that argument. I just reread the thread. There's a few politicians, from Harry Reid to Lindsey Graham making that argument. But we're not.

We're arguing that it hurts the war effort. Like Patreus said.

You've miraculously come around to that point of view now, I hope. Rather than continuing to argue that burning the Quran is a boon to beating terrorists.

I've been consistent in my argument to say that I don't approve of what this guy did and it doesn't help us from a PR stance. That being said one has to ask how far are we supposed to go to appease the people we are told are peacful and tolerant?

Every fucking thing we do seems garner the phrase "that will cause a backlash and create more terrorists".

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:22 PM
And such the worry about our soldiers lives coming from those who are so against interogation methods in the field and otherwise that may save the lives of our soldiers. Or the rules of engagement. WTF are you then? WTF were you when a commaning officer popped off a round to the side of a captured enemies head? He was reprimanded, the Left insisted on it yet the information the officer got from the captured enemy saved our troops from getting ambushed.

You're changing the subject, but whatever.

You can't simultaneously uphold our ideals and shit on them at the same time. You can't cry for the purity of free speech and then cheer the suspension of the 8th amendment. Or, well, maybe you can. But you're not being terribly consistent when you do.

I support all due efforts to keep our troops safe. But I'm no lover of the Constitution should support scorched earth tactics.

chiefzilla1501
04-03-2011, 11:22 PM
I support your friends and understand your worries. But the fact is they are fighting for the very Right that the dumbass in Florida exercised.

If only it were that black-and-white. I support free speech, but not when it goes against national security interests. Especially at a time of war. Terry Jones was warned of exactly the consequences of his actions and he did it anyway. And it led to increased casualties to our own troops and an increased threat level for terrorist attack. Unfortunately, we're not talking about speech against our fellow Americans. We're talking about speech against enemy combatants, which is even worse, because they're using that speech as propaganda fuel to incite anger against the US.

So yes, I support freedom of speech, but absolutely cannot support speech that threatens our mission to stabilize the middle east in any way we can. Not when the cause-and-effect of that speech is abundantly clear.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:24 PM
I've been consistent in my argument to say that I don't approve of what this guy did and it doesn't help us from a PR stance.

Ah, and we're starting to see the crease.

It doesn't help us from a PR stance, Pete?

How about the war effort? Does it help us there?

C'mon. Bring the madness. We're waiting for it.

trndobrd
04-03-2011, 11:25 PM
Dude, that is Free Speech. You don't have to agree with it. I don't agree with what this guy did and wish he hadn't. But that is his Right.

I'm familar with free speech. Thanks. I am very weary of clowns like this whoring themselves out to the media, and would very much like to see every jackass who hails him as some sort of 1st Amendment defender spend a couple months in Afghanistan or Iraq dealing with the consequences. I would put him in the same bucket as the Phelps clan of Free Speech heroes.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:25 PM
If only it were that black-and-white. I support free speech, but not when it goes against national security interests. Especially at a time of war. Terry Jones was warned of exactly the consequences of his actions and he did it anyway. And it led to increased casualties to our own troops and an increased threat level for terrorist attack. Unfortunately, we're not talking about speech against our fellow Americans. We're talking about speech against enemy combatants, which is even worse, because they're using that speech as propaganda fuel to incite anger against the US.

So yes, I support freedom of speech, but absolutely cannot support speech that threatens our mission to stabilize the middle east in any way we can. Not when the cause-and-effect of that speech is abundantly clear.

The fact is they have used countless other things to fuel the anger towards America. This is nothing more than another excuse for them to cling onto. And had this guy not burned the Koran are you seriously of the mind that there would not have been some other reason?

do you think people were actually afraid of offending the Nazis during WWII or the Japanese?

Maybem just maybe the reality is these people are not as tolerant as we would like to think they are? Maybe, just maybe we are fooling ourselves into a scenario we hope would come about but won't?

93 WTC, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, US Embassies, 9/11, etc, etc. They always have some reason that is our fault to do what they do.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:27 PM
I'm familar with free speech. Thanks. I am very weary of clowns like this whoring themselves out to the media, and would very much like to see every jackass who hails him as some sort of 1st Amendment defender spend a couple months in Afghanistan or Iraq dealing with the consequences. I would put him in the same bucket as the Phelps clan of Free Speech heroes.

I probably wouldn't disagree. But then again, where is the tolerance? And how far do we have to go not to offend muslims?

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:29 PM
Ah, and we're starting to see the crease.

It doesn't help us from a PR stance, Pete?

How about the war effort? Does it help us there?

C'mon. Bring the madness. We're waiting for it.

Don't keep me waiting, Pete. I want to see you dance.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:29 PM
Ah, and we're starting to see the crease.

It doesn't help us from a PR stance, Pete?

How about the war effort? Does it help us there?

C'mon. Bring the madness. We're waiting for it.

PR stance is directly related to the war effort. Why must I spell this out for you?

Then again, ya know, why would those people look around them on their very own land and see how many of our soldiers bleed and die for them to know what we are about when they can focus in some kook in Florida?

chiefzilla1501
04-03-2011, 11:31 PM
You sure seem to put up that argument. When we are blaming him for the deaths instead of the ones who actually committed the crime something is wrong. How far does it go? We have had people killed because of cartoon drawings in regards to Islam. We had South Park episodes taken off in fear of offending Islam.

So how far is it we are supposed to go to appease the tolerant muslims?

How far are we supposed to go? Much further. It's much different when we're talking about international soil that have a different degree of lawlessness. I support free speech in America because if you burn a flag, I know there are laws to protect you from backlash from someone who shoots you in outrage. You have no such guarantee on international soil. The laws are loose and to some degree, backlash is encouraged and most of the public is fed misleading propaganda information.

Now, if you're talking about pissing off a few muslim americans with free speech, that's a different story. But the international community? Yes, I think free speech should be restricted if there is a clear linkage to increase international threats.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:33 PM
PR stance is directly related to the war effort. Why must I spell this out for you?

Then again, ya know, why would those people look around them on their very own land and see how many of our soldiers bleed and die for them to know what we are about when they can focus in some kook in Florida?

So you are agreeing that burning Qurans endangers the war effort.

trndobrd
04-03-2011, 11:33 PM
The fact is they have used countless other things to fuel the anger towards America. This is nothing more than another excuse for them to cling onto. And had this guy not burned the Koran are you seriously of the mind that there would not have been some other reason?

do you think people were actually afraid of offending the Nazis during WWII or the Japanese?

Maybem just maybe the reality is these people are not as tolerant as we would like to think they are? Maybe, just maybe we are fooling ourselves into a scenario we hope would come about but won't?

93 WTC, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, US Embassies, 9/11, etc, etc. They always have some reason that is our fault to do what they do.


Are you talking about dedicated jihadists or the Afghan working as an interpreter for the US Army, an Iraqi truck driver delivering supplies to US bases, or the Afghan government soldier out on patrol with US Marines who all get to hear about someone in FL burning a Koran.

Just throwing them all together?

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:34 PM
How far are we supposed to go? Much further. It's much different when we're talking about international soil that have a different degree of lawlessness. I support free speech in America because if you burn a flag, I know there are laws to protect you from backlash from someone who shoots you in outrage. You have no such guarantee on international soil. The laws are loose and to some degree, backlash is encouraged and most of the public is fed misleading propaganda information.

Now, if you're talking about pissing off a few muslim americans with free speech, that's a different story. But the international community? Yes, I think free speech should be restricted if there is a clear linkage to increase international threats.

So as I said to Direkshun, we have soldiers over there dying for these people and they see that every day with their own eyes. So why the big hub-bub over one nutjob half way around the world? You see, this was just an excuse and if this guy didn't do it then it would have been for some other reason.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:36 PM
Are you talking about dedicated jihadists or the Afghan working as an interpreter for the US Army, an Iraqi truck driver delivering supplies to US bases, or the Afghan government soldier out on patrol with US Marines who all get to hear about someone in FL burning a Koran.

Just throwing them all together?

The people you mentioned, not the Jihadists, should have first hand knowledge that what the guy in Florida did does not represent us as a country and if they were\are truly tolerant, they blow it off. so if you are saying the truck driver gets bent over some guy in Florida when he sees first hand what we are really there doing then again, perhaps they are not as tolerant as we are led to believe.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:38 PM
So you are agreeing that burning Qurans endangers the war effort.

It doesn't help and I ahve said that already several times now. As far as engangers goes, I think if it wasn't this it would be something else. You have to remember what we are told every day about how peacful and tolerant Islam is. If one guy causes this then I have to seriously question such a statement.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:40 PM
It doesn't help and I ahve said that already several times now. As far as engangers goes, I think if it wasn't this it would be something else.

God you are boring the shit out of me.

trndobrd
04-03-2011, 11:42 PM
I probably wouldn't disagree. But then again, where is the tolerance? And how far do we have to go not to offend muslims?

I don't know. There is probably a line somewhere between "publicly buring their holy book for media attention" and "standing up against the Taliban" that most reasonable people could agree on.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:43 PM
God you are boring the shit out of me.

So what was the excuse for everything else? I'm sorry if the reality of it doesn't align itself with what you want it to be.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:44 PM
I don't know. There is probably a line somewhere between "publicly buring their holy book for media attention" and "standing up against the Taliban" that most reasonable people could agree on.

So we get back to the "tolerance" issue and how far are we supposed to go not to offend such a tolerant people? For fuck's sake, some of the people killed were UN, not even Americans.

See, it just doesn't wash.

Direckshun
04-03-2011, 11:44 PM
So what was the excuse for everything else?

I don't know, boobs or something. I have no idea what you're asking me.

chiefzilla1501
04-03-2011, 11:45 PM
So as I said to Direkshun, we have soldiers over there dying for these people and they see that every day with their own eyes. So why the big hub-bub over one nutjob half way around the world? You see, this was just an excuse and if this guy didn't do it then it would have been for some other reason.

Yes, of course, but realize what's going on here....
1) You have extremist leaders that are very much revered that are using this information as propaganda. When extremist leaders with a lot of influence are saying it's not a one-time thing, but a pattern of US hatred toward muslims, that's not a good thing. You know how it is. Liberals will believe anything Obama says, even if the information tells them otherwise. Same with conservatives and W. Bush. Now throw in a religious component, a religious they were born to devoutly follow since they were kids.
2) You assume that all people are rational. Again, look at some of the Bush/Obama supporter arguments, even when facts tell them otherwise. Now add in the fact that these countries control a lot of the information the public receives.
3) In many cases, these people don't have a choice but to follow. It happened in Nazi Germany too when Germans were afraid to voice opposition for fear of the government or peer backlash. When the leaders/clerics/influential peers in the community could have you killed or humiliated for saying something negative, the tolerant muslims often don't have a voice.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:45 PM
Where were all these tolerant and peaceful muslims while these people were being killed? These innocent people that had nothing to do with they guy in Florida?

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 11:46 PM
I don't know. There is probably a line somewhere between "publicly buring their holy book for media attention" and "standing up against the Taliban" that most reasonable people could agree on.

Guys who burn Qur'ans aren't invited to conversations between reasonable people.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:50 PM
Yes, of course, but realize what's going on here....
1) You have extremist leaders that are very much revered that are using this information as propaganda. When extremist leaders with a lot of influence are saying it's not a one-time thing, but a pattern of US hatred toward muslims, that's not a good thing. You know how it is. Liberals will believe anything Obama says, even if the information tells them otherwise. Same with conservatives and W. Bush. Now throw in a religious component, a religious they were born to devoutly follow since they were kids.
2) You assume that all people are rational. Again, look at some of the Bush/Obama supporter arguments, even when facts tell them otherwise. Now add in the fact that these countries control a lot of the information the public receives.
3) In many cases, these people don't have a choice but to follow. It happened in Nazi Germany too when Germans were afraid to voice opposition for fear of the government or peer backlash. When the leaders/clerics/influential peers in the community could have you killed or humiliated for saying something negative, the tolerant muslims often don't have a voice.

I don't assume all people are rational. It seems the common assumption we are all supposed to believe is that these are tolerant people.

There was a time in our country when you could be killed for speaking out against the Monarchy. There also comes a time, specifically when we have people over their dying for these people, to stand up and say no more.

I know you said you have friends over there. I too have\had friends and family in both Iraq and Afghanistan and you know what I get told by every single one of them? These people want us to bleed and die for them and when something goes bad it's our fault. They do little to help themselves even when we are there to help them help themselves. While I am sympathetic to their situation I also have to draw a line when it comes to the scenario that it is ok for us to die for them but they won't make a stand for themselves.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:51 PM
Guys who burn Qur'ans aren't invited to conversations between reasonable people.

This I would agree with. Then again if it were a Bible and the person took a picture of it on fire and framed it, "reasonable people" would call it art and have a party for him.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 11:52 PM
...These people want us to bleed and die for them...

No, I don't think they do.

ClevelandBronco
04-03-2011, 11:54 PM
This I would agree with. Then again if it were a Bible and the person took a picture of it on fire and framed it, "reasonable people" would call it art and have a party for him.

I'd be interested in hearing the artist's viewpoint. I'd probably think it was bullshit, but as long as the food is good at the party I won't pick nits.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:55 PM
No, I don't think they do.

Not what I have been told. Take my brother-in-law for instance, was on a freedom partol in Iraq where you had 1 US Soldier and 3 or 4 Iraqi soldiers. There was a car wreck that they stopped to inspect and crowds started gathering around and turning somewhat hostile. The Iraqi solders bailed on Jason and he more or less had to run for his life back to the base.

petegz28
04-03-2011, 11:58 PM
No, I don't think they do.

To clarify more. What they all have told me is these people think their way of life is the will of Ala (sp?). Therefore there is little desire on their part to want to stand up and fight because if Ala didn't want it the way it is then it wouldn't be that way.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 12:03 AM
Not what I have been told. Take my brother-in-law for instance, was on a freedom partol in Iraq where you had 1 US Soldier and 3 or 4 Iraqi soldiers. There was a car wreck that they stopped to inspect and crowds started gathering around and turning somewhat hostile. The Iraqi solders bailed on Jason and he more or less had to run for his life back to the base.

I didn't see anything about reaction in Iraq to the Qur'an burning in Florida. I'm not sure we're talking about the same people.

petegz28
04-04-2011, 12:04 AM
I didn't see anything about reaction in Iraq to the Qur'an burning in Florida.

I was speaking about the muslim mentality in the region in general. the fact remains though, that these people "wanted" a better life but didn't want to do much to make it happen. When Jason was trainign the Iraqi troops they took little seriously and expected the Americans to do everything.

HonestChieffan
04-04-2011, 07:42 AM
We may see a similar result from the hire of Frank "Keep the" Haith.

petegz28
04-04-2011, 07:49 AM
We may see a similar result from the hire of Frank "Keep the" Haith.

Don't even go there. Talk about bad news.

Saul Good
04-04-2011, 08:31 AM
This is supposed to be a war, right? It is up to our leaders to keep our troops safe. We have them on the ground doing God-knows-what and putting themselves into dangerous situations for no clear purpose. Meanwhile, the blame is shifted to a guy in Florida burning a Koron?

WTF is that? If the most powerful military in the world is jeopardized because a guy burned a book, we need to get our guys out of there.

Jaric
04-04-2011, 08:33 AM
You know, there is a difference between something you can do, and something you should do.

Cave Johnson
04-04-2011, 10:37 AM
Pete supporting a dumbass' right to engage in dumbassery?

Color me shocked.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 10:41 AM
Pete supporting a dumbass' right to engage in dumbassery?

Color me shocked.

Read closer. Everyone has supported the dumbass's right to engage in dumbassery.

Amnorix
04-04-2011, 10:41 AM
To clarify more. What they all have told me is these people think their way of life is the will of Ala (sp?). Therefore there is little desire on their part to want to stand up and fight because if Ala didn't want it the way it is then it wouldn't be that way.

How do you explain the prolonged and ultimately successful resistance to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan then?

The Village Idiot
04-04-2011, 11:18 AM
It's that we should act in the best interests of the lives of an American army in harms way.


Ok. Going on your point here, that we should act in the best interests of or American army. At some point these people will attack an american, for whatever reason there is (do they really need one?), whether here or there or somewhere. We can also agree that they hide in the general population, which through their inaction allows these crackpots to behead/riot all over the place..yes?

And if the safety of our soldiers in harms way (as you say) is your primary concern, then you would be ok with us destroying that city with conventional weapons right? Cause afterall, an american might be hurt, and since they are hiding in general population who allow them to do this stuff, then our only option (since our troops already there), is to remove the probable threat.

I wonder how you leftists would go for that? I dont think you would, cause deep down you care more for the civil liberties of a group of people that want to BEHEAD you, then you do for the soldiers lives (as you like to profess).

I think we start treating them like they treat us. Behead one more innocent person and will be level the city that allowed it.. What they going to do more protests, beheadings? More cities get wiped out...eventually there is no more cities over there to threaten the innoncents...OR the true innoncent muslims will rise up and expose their terrorist elements within themselves, and finally move to a more progressive human rights society.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 11:25 AM
Ok. Going on your point here, that we should act in the best interests of or American army. At some point these people will attack an american, for whatever reason there is (do they really need one?), whether here or there or somewhere. We can also agree that they hide in the general population, which through their inaction allows these crackpots to behead/riot all over the place..yes?

And if the safety of our soldiers in harms way (as you say) is your primary concern, then you would be ok with us destroying that city with conventional weapons right? Cause afterall, an american might be hurt, and since they are hiding in general population who allow them to do this stuff, then our only option (since our troops already there), is to remove the probable threat.

I wonder how you leftists would go for that? I dont think you would, cause deep down you care more for the civil liberties of a group of people that want to BEHEAD you, then you do for the soldiers lives (as you like to profess).

I think we start treating them like they treat us. Behead one more innocent person and will be level the city that allowed it.. What they going to do more protests, beheadings? More cities get wiped out...eventually there is no more cities over there to threaten the innoncents...OR the true innoncent muslims will rise up and expose their terrorist elements within themselves, and finally move to a more progressive human rights society.

I'll bet it felt good to get that shit out of your head.

Cave Johnson
04-04-2011, 11:39 AM
I wonder how you leftists would go for that? I dont think you would, cause deep down you care more for the civil liberties of a group of people that want to BEHEAD you, then you do for the soldiers lives (as you like to profess).

I don't give two shits about their civil liberties. Rational people, however, can agree that inflammatory actions have consequences.

I think we start treating them like they treat us. Behead one more innocent person and will be level the city that allowed it.. What they going to do more protests, beheadings? More cities get wiped out...eventually there is no more cities over there to threaten the innoncents...OR the true innoncent muslims will rise up and expose their terrorist elements within themselves, and finally move to a more progressive human rights society.

That'll win over the hearts and minds...

petegz28
04-04-2011, 11:45 AM
Pete supporting a dumbass' right to engage in dumbassery?

Color me shocked.

Yea, it's his Right, you fucking idiot.

petegz28
04-04-2011, 11:47 AM
How do you explain the prolonged and ultimately successful resistance to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan then?

That was in support of their current way of life, was it not? I see what you are trying to say but I think it is two different scenearios.

BigRichard
04-04-2011, 11:50 AM
I didn't see anyone say that the First Amendment should be restricted. Only that jackasses who intentionally fan hatred for the sole purpose getting some media attention should be publicly called out for putting American service member lives in more danger.

:spock:

Sorry, I'm all for Freedom of Speech. But I also have several friends overseas who I'm worried sick about. I don't support freedom of speech that puts us in greater danger of terrorist attack.



Amen.

alnorth
04-04-2011, 12:17 PM
I don't give two shits about their civil liberties. Rational people, however, can agree that inflammatory actions have consequences.

Burning a book is not an inflammatory action which should cause us to be concerned about consequences. If someone invented an outdoor hamburger and hot dog stove that was fueled by a steady supply of flammable Qurans and the demand to buy such a stove was well in the tens of thousands, I wouldn't even so much as raise an eyebrow or spend a minute lamenting it.

If you become violent because a book on the other side of the world was burned, then you are crazy. We're dealing with crazy people. There is no reason why the government should be allowed to piss on the 1st amendment to mollify some crazy people. After we try to do something about this, next it'll be something else, then something else nuts they don't like us doing, etc. Screw them and their insane quirks.

If you are dealing with dangerous crazy people, you need to either stay out of their way, protect yourselves from them, or kill them. The latter option is a bit extreme, so we should opt for the first option and let them all rot in a bloody civil war.

Jaric
04-04-2011, 12:26 PM
Burning a book is not an inflammatory action which should cause us to be concerned about consequences. If someone invented an outdoor hamburger and hot dog stove that was fueled by a steady supply of flammable Qurans and the demand to buy such a stove was well in the tens of thousands, I wouldn't even so much as raise an eyebrow or spend a minute lamenting it.

If you become violent because a book on the other side of the world was burned, then you are crazy. We're dealing with crazy people. There is no reason why the government should be allowed to piss on the 1st amendment to mollify some crazy people. After we try to do something about this, next it'll be something else, then something else nuts they don't like us doing, etc. Screw them and their insane quirks.

If you are dealing with dangerous crazy people, you need to either stay out of their way, protect yourselves from them, or kill them. The latter option is a bit extreme, so we should opt for the first option and let them all rot in a bloody civil war.

I don't think anyone has argued the people chopping heads off aren't crazy.

Only that intentionally provoking them isn't a good idea. Which lets face it, is exactly why this guy in FL is burning Korans. Because he knows what reaction it will get.

petegz28
04-04-2011, 12:29 PM
I don't think anyone has argued the people chopping heads off aren't crazy.

Only that intentionally provoking them isn't a good idea. Which lets face it, is exactly why this guy in FL is burning Korans. Because he knows what reaction it will get.

And as alnorth has said along with myself, if it weren't for this it would be for something else. They would find a reason. This is just the excuse of the day.

alnorth
04-04-2011, 12:37 PM
I don't think anyone has argued the people chopping heads off aren't crazy.

Only that intentionally provoking them isn't a good idea. Which lets face it, is exactly why this guy in FL is burning Korans. Because he knows what reaction it will get.

Its not a good idea? Well, neither is cussing out a biker gang, but we aren't going to do anything about it.

ForeverChiefs58
04-04-2011, 12:46 PM
Fla. Pastor Who Burned Quran Says He's Willing To Die

Posted: 12:24 pm EDT April 4, 2011
Updated: 12:47 pm EDT April 4, 2011

GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- A controversial Gainesville pastor spoke out Monday after his burning of a Quran sparked deadly protests in Afghanistan. Pastor Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center, has received hundreds of death threats since he burned the holy book last month.

Over 20 were killed in Afghanistan, violence sparked by the burning of a single Quran at the tiny Gainesville church. General David Petraeus condemned the burning, hinting it could harm American troops.

"That action was hateful. It was intolerant," Petraeus said.

But Jones says his beliefs are more important, but even at expense of American soldiers?

"I would have to say yes," Jones told Good Morning America's Matt Gutman. "Perhaps in the long run, uh, we have saved hundreds or thousands of lives."

The death threats are streaming in.

"Right now we have a little over 300 threats," Jones said. "Today, I believe 10 threats came in."

Some of the threats are so specific that they name date, time and places where Jones would be killed. The FBI says the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah has a $2.4 million bounty on his head.

But Jones and his assistant, Wayne Sapp, the man who actually lit the match to burn the Quran, said they're not afraid.

"You are willing to die for this?" Gutman asked Jones.

"Uh, yes we are, very definitely. That is actually how important we feel that it is," he said.

At the embattled church, everyone who enters is searched for weapons. Jones and his few remaining followers are always armed.

This is a church that's increasingly isolated.

"It's been said that parishioners have left this church. I wonder how many?" Gutman asked Jones.

"I would say, basically, all," he said.

It's a small group left, but increasingly difficult for Florida law enforcement to protect.

The FBI and local police says it has spent hundreds of thousands to secure the church. They say they aren't thrilled, but are doing it to protect area residents.

Pastor Jones told Gutman they have no plans to burn additional Qurans.

Easy 6
04-04-2011, 12:46 PM
LOL right.

No shit. If he'd like to go as far back as the crusades then fine, but outside of that there is nothing even remotely comparable from Christians.

A handful of abortion doctor killers here in America, thats about it, beyond that its Christians who seem to be running for their lives everywhere but here & europe.

Jaric
04-04-2011, 12:47 PM
Its not a good idea? Well, neither is cussing out a biker gang, but we aren't going to do anything about it.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think I saw anyone advocating that we take away his right to burn the book. Only people saying he's not helping the situation by doing so.

I'm not sure why that's so controversial, it seems like common sense to me.

:shrug:

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 12:50 PM
Fla. Pastor Who Burned Quran Says He's Willing To Die

I'd believe him only if he arranged a trip to Afghanistan without escort.

Jaric
04-04-2011, 12:51 PM
I'd believe him only if he arranged a trip to Afghanistan without escort.

This. It's easy to be "ready to die" when the people who want to kill you are by and large seperated by at least one, maybe two oceans.

go bowe
04-04-2011, 01:32 PM
I didn't see anything about reaction in Iraq to the Qur'an burning in Florida. I'm not sure we're talking about the same people.oh we're talking about the same people...

you know, all muslims, all 1.5 billion of them are aq/taliban...

the millions of muslims in america are all terrorists, which is why we have terror attacks every day of the week in america...

there are no secular muslims, just islamists...

the pro-democracy demonstrators in egypt and throughout the me are all terrrorists too...

especially those guys in qatar, sending their jets to help nato with the no-fly zone in libya, freakin' terrorists i say, terrorists...

and don't forget that woman at the grocery store wearing one of those terrorist head scarves...

she's hiding a bomb under her dress, just like all those other muslims (all of whom are terrorists)...

how do i know this? that's easy, pete told me so...

Donger
04-04-2011, 01:54 PM
"We cannot see the difference between that man in Florida and the American soldiers here," said Karimullah, a 25-year-old religious student who, like many Afghans, goes by one name and took part in Sunday's Kandahar protests. "They are killing our people here while in the U.S. they burn the Holy Quran. America just wants to humiliate the Muslim world."

I wonder if this idiot would like it if Americans didn't view him and some Islamic terrorist any different?

Donger
04-04-2011, 01:55 PM
there are no secular muslims, just islamists...


Can one really be a secular Muslim, or secular [insert religion]?

go bowe
04-04-2011, 02:06 PM
Can one really be a secular Muslim, or secular [insert religion]?yes...

everybody who is not a fundamentalist religious nut is pretty much secular...

that goes for muslims, catholics, protestants, jews and even pete...

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 02:08 PM
Can one really be a secular Muslim, or secular [insert religion]?

My interpretation of the concept would be that it's kind of like my kids saying they're Mexican (actually, they more often call themselves ***person of Hispanic heritages*** — the filter does not permit the actual term). Well, they're not really Mexican. They just have Mexican heritage and acknowledge the influence of that culture on their lives. I can see the same kind of attitude being referred to as "secular Christianity."

orange
04-04-2011, 05:33 PM
Can one really be a secular Muslim, or secular [insert religion]?

According to Newt Gingrich, America's becoming a secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 05:36 PM
According to Newt Gingrich, America's becoming a secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists.

Do you have the quote? The assertion is bullshit. We don't have enough radical Islamists to overwhelm our atheists. I can see how they could easily swamp our agnostics, though.

go bowe
04-04-2011, 05:37 PM
According to Newt Gingrich, America's becoming a secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists.yeah, can you imagine dave lane dominated by radical islamists?

i think not...

orange
04-04-2011, 06:05 PM
Do you have the quote? The assertion is bullshit. We don't have enough radical Islamists to overwhelm our atheists. I can see how they could easily swamp our agnostics, though.


"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52023.html#ixzz1IbAcS5Gl

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 06:50 PM
"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

Okay. It's a bit less than what you advertised, but only slightly. If his statement were a used car, I'd quibble but we could probably still come to an agreement.

The man carefully inserts the wiggle word "if," and leaves out any language that would clearly define what a decisive win would look like in "the struggle over the nature of America."

It's a warning, but it doesn't rise to the level of a prophecy (even less an observation of what's currently happening) to my ear.

PornChief
04-04-2011, 07:43 PM
amazing how many people endorse Islam's war on free speech.

chiefzilla1501
04-04-2011, 08:23 PM
amazing how many people endorse Islam's war on free speech.

You're making the ridiculous assumption that these extremists can be negotiated with.

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Not all free speech is protected. I can't believe people would protect free speech to the level that they're willing to sacrifice soldiers and increase threat of national security to defend it. Did you read the article that florida is spending hundreds of thousands to protect this clown?

Unless anyone can propose an alternative where he can exercise this free speech AND not increase risk, deaths, and taxpayer money, maybe we should re-evaluate the cost of defending morons like this.

petegz28
04-04-2011, 08:52 PM
You're making the ridiculous assumption that these extremists can be negotiated with.

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. Not all free speech is protected. I can't believe people would protect free speech to the level that they're willing to sacrifice soldiers and increase threat of national security to defend it. Did you read the article that florida is spending hundreds of thousands to protect this clown?

Unless anyone can propose an alternative where he can exercise this free speech AND not increase risk, deaths, and taxpayer money, maybe we should re-evaluate the cost of defending morons like this.

Again at the risk of sounding cliche, many soldiers are fighting\fought and died so the nut job in Florida can do exactly what he did. Doesn't mean he should have done or that it was a smart thing.

Jaric
04-04-2011, 08:55 PM
amazing how many people endorse Islam's war on free speech.

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from consequences.

No one said he shouldn't be allowed to do what he's doing. Only that it's not a good idea.

Jaric
04-04-2011, 08:56 PM
Again at the risk of sounding cliche, many soldiers are fighting\fought and died so the nut job in Florida can do exactly what he did. Doesn't mean he should have done or that it was a smart thing.

I say the exact same thing about people who burn the Flag.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 08:56 PM
I don't think you deserve to be taken seriously with regards to Islam or Muslims in any shape or form if you're spelling Allah's name "ala."

alnorth
04-04-2011, 08:57 PM
Can one really be a secular Muslim, or secular [insert religion]?

yes. Probably a big chunk of "catholics" are in church to keep their spouse happy. There are reasons to go to church other than belief. Of course, you might counter that this hypothetical faithless guy isn't really catholic, but if the definition of being a member of a religion includes belief then you are right, you've defined secular right out of it and its not possible.

Jaric
04-04-2011, 08:57 PM
I don't think you deserve to be taken seriously with regards to Islam or Muslims in any shape or form if you're spelling Allah's name "ala."

Isn't that French for "with?"

Jaric
04-04-2011, 09:01 PM
sec·u·lar   [sek-yuh-ler]
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

2. not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.

3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular).

5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.

6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.

Direckshun
04-04-2011, 09:02 PM
Isn't that French for "with?"

It's certainly not Muslim for "God," that's for sure.

alnorth
04-04-2011, 09:03 PM
Unless anyone can propose an alternative where he can exercise this free speech AND not increase risk, deaths, and taxpayer money, maybe we should re-evaluate the cost of defending morons like this.

This is not yelling fire in a crowded theater. A better analogy would be simultaneously yelling fire in every crowded theater in the entire country for a full week and then comparing that outcome to what happened here.

My right to drive a car is more likely to result in someone else dying no matter how careful I am, than if I were to choose to walk. We aren't going to ban cars.

You can't say "X causes people to die, so we must ban X!", you need some kind of cold-hearted intelligent cost-benefit analysis here. As heartless as it may sound, this didn't kill very many people at all. More people probably died of drowning in Texas recently than died in Afghanistan over these riots.

The cost of our freedom of speech is not even remotely offset by the benefit.

Jaric
04-04-2011, 09:04 PM
It's certainly not Muslim for "God," that's for sure.

I assume by "Muslim" you mean "Arabic?"

alnorth
04-04-2011, 09:07 PM
sec·u·lar   [sek-yuh-ler]
–adjective

Context matters. When the word is applied to some event or object, it just means that event or object is not religious in nature, not necessarily that it is anti-religious.

When you apply that word to a member of a religion, ie "a secular jew", the strong implication is that guy is going through the motions for some reason other than belief.

If you are a strong believer in a religion, and someone called you a secular (name of religion), you should be insulted by that.

petegz28
04-04-2011, 09:29 PM
I say the exact same thing about people who burn the Flag.

You should because the same right applies.

petegz28
04-04-2011, 09:32 PM
This is not yelling fire in a crowded theater. A better analogy would be simultaneously yelling fire in every crowded theater in the entire country for a full week and then comparing that outcome to what happened here.

My right to drive a car is more likely to result in someone else dying no matter how careful I am, than if I were to choose to walk. We aren't going to ban cars.

You can't say "X causes people to die, so we must ban X!", you need some kind of cold-hearted intelligent cost-benefit analysis here. As heartless as it may sound, this didn't kill very many people at all. More people probably died of drowning in Texas recently than died in Afghanistan over these riots.

The cost of our freedom of speech is not even remotely offset by the benefit.

More to the point, the fault lays at the feet of the people who actually committed the murders. I refuse to make them victims or buy into this excuse that some whacko in Florida "caused" this. If it weren't this it would be some other reason. There is always something in the minds of people like this that justifies their actions to themselves no matter what the reason. A cartoon, etc, etc.

chiefzilla1501
04-05-2011, 07:50 AM
This is not yelling fire in a crowded theater. A better analogy would be simultaneously yelling fire in every crowded theater in the entire country for a full week and then comparing that outcome to what happened here.

My right to drive a car is more likely to result in someone else dying no matter how careful I am, than if I were to choose to walk. We aren't going to ban cars.

You can't say "X causes people to die, so we must ban X!", you need some kind of cold-hearted intelligent cost-benefit analysis here. As heartless as it may sound, this didn't kill very many people at all. More people probably died of drowning in Texas recently than died in Afghanistan over these riots.

The cost of our freedom of speech is not even remotely offset by the benefit.

Your right to drive a car doesn't create a clear danger to national security. And you can't just measure the impact by soldier death count. You have to also measure how much our threat of terror attack increased, how much this may have fueled both a dormant insurgency or maybe even riled up a few muslims who weren't previously anti-america. God forbid we get attacked--would you still say this was worth it? Now add in the dollars we're spending in increased preparation. How much is florida spending to defend this clown? We're told hundreds of thousands. What about america ramping up their defense efforts?

For the record, I don't know how you handle this. I'm not saying he should be punished or arrested or anything. Or maybe he shoild be. Don't know. I do believe that free speech is a different issue when you're talking national security. Just as it is a different issue if speech is intentionally malicious. Burning a flag doesn't change our national security. Riling up our enemy at war does.

A few questions... What if this sparks a terrorist attack? Or what if other nutjobs see that jones gets off scot-free, start posting youtube videos of their own, and suddenly we have hundreds of youtube videos that really rile up extremists? And what if that violence then escalates into massive casualties above what was normal? Would you still defend his right to free speech?

Baby Lee
04-05-2011, 08:55 AM
Did you read the article that florida is spending hundreds of thousands to protect this clown?
How much did it cost to defend Larry Flynt up through the SC?

Baby Lee
04-05-2011, 08:56 AM
Isn't that French for "with?"

with the [feminine]

Jaric
04-05-2011, 08:58 AM
with the [feminine]

Oooo that will really piss off the Jihadists.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 09:09 AM
Again at the risk of sounding cliche, many soldiers are fighting\fought and died so the nut job in Florida can do exactly what he did. Doesn't mean he should have done or that it was a smart thing.

American soldiers are not fighting in the Middle East so a jackass in Florida can burn Korans. The moron should be publicly ridiculed and met with disgust, not defended by private citizens.

The short-term goals are to gut out Al-Qaeda. The big picture, the long-term policy for the region is to foster pro-Western attitudes, democracy and capitalism. This demands good relations with the people, and the people are Muslim, and we have to work with that.

I have a brother in Afghanistan. If Petraeus says that a jackass burning Korans puts my brother more at risk than he was before, than I sincerely hate that jackass who is burning the Koran and sincerely hate the jackasses who are supporting him.

Baby Lee
04-05-2011, 09:12 AM
American soldiers are not fighting in the Middle East so a jackass in Florida can burn Korans. The moron should be publicly ridiculed and met with disgust, not defended by private citizens.

The short-term goals are to gut out Al-Qaeda. The big picture, the long-term policy for the region is to foster pro-Western attitudes, democracy and capitalism. This demands good relations with the people, and the people are Muslim, and we have to work with that.

I have a brother in Afghanistan. If Petraeus says that a jackass burning Korans puts my brother more at risk than he was before, than I sincerely hate that jackass who is burning the Koran and sincerely hate the jackasses who are supporting him.
And isn't it great you live in a place and time where you are free to express your hatred?

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 09:18 AM
And isn't it great you live in a place and time where you are free to express your hatred?

Of course, but if my hatred towards Koran-burning-jackass was putting soldiers at risk, I would keep it private. That's the only decent thing to do.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 09:24 AM
American soldiers are not fighting in the Middle East so a jackass in Florida can burn Korans.
This is the oath (or at least one of them) that enlisted men take before joining the armed forces.

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

So yes, they are fighting for jackass's right to burn the Koran. I'm sure that's not why they enlisted, and I doubt that they are thinking about that during a firefight, but as men and women sworn to fight for the constitution (which protect's jackass's right to burn the Koran) they are in effect sworn to protect jackass's right to burn the Koran.

The moron should be publicly ridiculed and met with disgust, not defended by private citizens.

The short-term goals are to gut out Al-Qaeda. The big picture, the long-term policy for the region is to foster pro-Western attitudes, democracy and capitalism. This demands good relations with the people, and the people are Muslim, and we have to work with that.

I have a brother in Afghanistan. If Petraeus says that a jackass burning Korans puts my brother more at risk than he was before, than I sincerely hate that jackass who is burning the Koran and sincerely hate the jackasses who are supporting him.First off, my best wishes to your brother. May God (whichever one applies in his case) bring him home safely and quickly.

If memory serves me you are a college student correct Jenson? Let me share something with you I learned when I was in college.

It is not popular speech that needs protecting.

The whole point of protecting speech is to protect the rights of people to say and do things that are unpopular. It is these moments when we are truely tested to see if we really support Freedom of Speech. It is not neccesary for me to agree with what someone says to believe they have the right to say it.

I personally find this jackass's actions despicable. However, the idea of living in a place where he would not be free to express such an opinion is something I find even more despicable.

The ideal of a free society is the most important foundation our country was built on. Unfortunately, many people will use that freedom to do or say things we do not approve of or agree with. It is these times when our professed love of freedom is truly tested.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 09:30 AM
Context matters. When the word is applied to some event or object, it just means that event or object is not religious in nature, not necessarily that it is anti-religious.

When you apply that word to a member of a religion, ie "a secular jew", the strong implication is that guy is going through the motions for some reason other than belief.

If you are a strong believer in a religion, and someone called you a secular (name of religion), you should be insulted by that.

I get what you're saying. I just don't think that "secular" is the word you're looking for going by the definition. I'm assuming that's what prompted Donger to ask the question in the first place.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 09:31 AM
That is all nicely said, but it's irrelevant to what I was saying. I'm not making a free speech argument. I'm not saying the government should throw jackass in jail. I'm saying he should be publicly ridiculed by 300 million Americans.

And soldiers swear to protect the Constitution. Great. They are not fighting for the purpose of a jackass to burn the Koran. The burning of a Koran in no way goes to solving our goals in Afghanistan.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 09:39 AM
That is all nicely said, but it's irrelevant to what I was saying. I'm not making a free speech argument. I'm not saying the government should throw jackass in jail. I'm saying he should be publicly ridiculed by 300 million Americans.Irrelevant how? You said you hated the people supporting him. Perhaps I misunderstood just who that was directed at, but my basic point what there is a difference between saying a man has a right to say something, and supporting what he is saying.

Most people here seem to be saying more or less the same thing. "This guy's an idiot, but he has the right to do that." Saying he has the right to do something is not the same as agreeing with what he's doing.

And soldiers swear to protect the Constitution. Great. They are not fighting for the purpose of a jackass to burn the Koran. The burning of a Koran in no way goes to solving our goals in Afghanistan.???

It's simple logic.

Solders are sworn to protect the constitution.
The constitution protects jackass's right to be a jackass.
Therefore, Soldier are sworn to protect jackass's right to be a jackass.

Flag burning was brought up because the situations are very similar. It's an act that most people either find offensive or at the least disagree with. It's also been considered a protected act under the constitution.

And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about burning the Koran solving problems in Afghanistan. I don't think anyone has even come remotely close to arguing that it does.

trndobrd
04-05-2011, 09:57 AM
Solders are sworn to protect the constitution.
The constitution protects jackass's right to be a jackass.
Therefore, Soldier are sworn to protect jackass's right to be a jackass.



Protected under the Constitution, yes. Worthy of scorn and ridicule, absolutely. A good example of Christian behavior, no. Morally culpable for the death of American Soldiers, possibly.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 09:59 AM
Protected under the Constitution, yes. Worthy of scorn and ridicule, absolutely. A good example of Christian behavior, no.

Preaching to the choir here. Agree 100%

EDIT: Not sure I agree with you on the edited part. Ultimately, the jackasses actually cutting the heads off are the ones responsible. However, I'm pretty sure that's the reaction our jackass was hoping for because it proves his point that Muslims are evil. Does that make him morally culpable? Man I don't know. I'm content to just say he sucks and I hope someone kicks him in the balls with steel toes and leave it at that

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 10:13 AM
Protected under the Constitution, yes. Worthy of scorn and ridicule, absolutely. A good example of Christian behavior, no. Morally culpable for the death of American Soldiers, possibly.

If you don't mind someone agreeing even with the edited part (whichever part that may have been), I'm with you across the board.

Call me crazy, but I'll take Patraeus's word for how this plays out in Afghanistan. It's not usually the man's style to interrupt us stateside unless it's important.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 10:20 AM
Irrelevant how? You said you hated the people supporting him. Perhaps I misunderstood just who that was directed at, but my basic point what there is a difference between saying a man has a right to say something, and supporting what he is saying.

Most people here seem to be saying more or less the same thing. "This guy's an idiot, but he has the right to do that." Saying he has the right to do something is not the same as agreeing with what he's doing.

Yes, anyone supporting him by proclamations of "This is bullshit! This is America!" or applaud his actions or think he doesn't deserve scorn is the target of my comment.

Your reply to me was irrelevant for essentially the reason you post here: "this guy's an idiot." That's what I'm saying, I'm just leaving off the part about "he has the right to do that." My post wasn't about his rights. Your reply was entirely about his rights. That's why it was irrelevant.

???

It's simple logic.

Solders are sworn to protect the constitution.
The constitution protects jackass's right to be a jackass.
Therefore, Soldier are sworn to protect jackass's right to be a jackass.

And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about burning the Koran solving problems in Afghanistan. I don't think anyone has even come remotely close to arguing that it does.

Sure, soldiers are sworn to protect the constitution. But only in the most indirect, vague, and useless terms is that why they fight.

Pete: "US soldiers are fighting to protect this guy's free speech."
Me: "No they're not. They are fighting to destroy Islamic political extremist groups in the Middle East."
You: "Yeah, they are fighting to protect this guy's free speech."
Me: "No, his free speech has nothing to do with why they are fighting."

Flag burning was brought up because the situations are very similar. It's an act that most people either find offensive or at the least disagree with. It's also been considered a protected act under the constitution.

Personally, I wouldn't be angry if flag burning was punishable under federal crime, but I'm also not too angry that it isn't.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 10:31 AM
Yes, anyone supporting him by proclamations of "This is bullshit! This is America!" or applaud his actions or think he doesn't deserve scorn is the target of my comment.Just to clarify this. My position is "he's an idiot, but it's his right to be an idiot." I got the impression from your post people expressing that view fell into your category of "supporting him. I wanted to make sure if that was the case to point out there is a distinction. If that was not your point then we've been talking past each other the past few posts and if that is the case I appologize for my part in that.


Sure, soldiers are sworn to protect the constitution. But only in the most indirect, vague, and useless terms is that why they fight.

Pete: "US soldiers are fighting to protect this guy's free speech."
Me: "No they're not. They are fighting to destroy Islamic political extremist groups in the Middle East."
You: "Yeah, they are fighting to protect this guy's free speech."
Me: "No, his free speech has nothing to do with why they are fighting."Why do soldiers fight? Well I'd say they fight because their commanding officer told them to and they are sworn to follow orders (in general, I know there are some shall we say loopholes in that) But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The point Pete was making, which I agree with, wasn't that a bunch of marines went to fallujuah so some jackass in florida could burn islamic holy books, but rather as men and women who defend the constitution, their sacrifices protect our freedoms. Those freedoms include the rights to be a jackass (in both examples we used.) This is a bit of a side conversation. You've turned it into something it was never meant to be.

Personally, I wouldn't be angry if flag burning was punishable under federal crime, but I'm also not too angry that it isn't.Flag burning is precisely the type of speech that needs to be protected. At least if one claims to believe in freedom.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 10:49 AM
Why do soldiers fight? Well I'd say they fight because their commanding officer told them to and they are sworn to follow orders (in general, I know there are some shall we say loopholes in that) But that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The point Pete was making, which I agree with, wasn't that a bunch of marines went to fallujuah so some jackass in florida could burn islamic holy books, but rather as men and women who defend the constitution, their sacrifices protect our freedoms. Those freedoms include the rights to be a jackass (in both examples we used.) This is a bit of a side conversation. You've turned it into something it was never meant to be.

Support for the jackass comes in the idea that he is doing the type of things that the soldiers are currently fighting to protect. That's a perverted view of the goals of our military and foreign policy in this war. I want to totally divorce the idea that soldiers are currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for the reason that we can practice hateful actions and speech towards religious groups.

I understand the point Pete is making. I'm trying to diminish the point.

Flag burning is precisely the type of speech that needs to be protected. At least if one claims to believe in freedom.

One can believe in freedom and be against flag burning, if one takes the view that the flag represents freedom to the degree that burning it represents a symbolic destroying of freedom.

I'm also against graffiti on the halls of the publicly financed Congress, despite whatever important message you think you have the freedom to express.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 10:56 AM
Yes, anyone supporting him by proclamations of "This is bullshit! This is America!" or applaud his actions or think he doesn't deserve scorn is the target of my comment.

Your reply to me was irrelevant for essentially the reason you post here: "this guy's an idiot." That's what I'm saying, I'm just leaving off the part about "he has the right to do that." My post wasn't about his rights. Your reply was entirely about his rights. That's why it was irrelevant.



Sure, soldiers are sworn to protect the constitution. But only in the most indirect, vague, and useless terms is that why they fight.

Pete: "US soldiers are fighting to protect this guy's free speech."
Me: "No they're not. They are fighting to destroy Islamic political extremist groups in the Middle East."
You: "Yeah, they are fighting to protect this guy's free speech."
Me: "No, his free speech has nothing to do with why they are fighting."



Personally, I wouldn't be angry if flag burning was punishable under federal crime, but I'm also not too angry that it isn't.

And why are they fighting the Islamic political extremist? Could it be because they pose a threat to us and our way of life?

petegz28
04-05-2011, 11:02 AM
Protected under the Constitution, yes. Worthy of scorn and ridicule, absolutely. A good example of Christian behavior, no. Morally culpable for the death of American Soldiers, possibly.

I'm with you up to the culpable spot. Again, this was just the excuse of the day. If it weren't this it would be something else. They latch onto any and every little thing to justify their actions and what it does in turn is force us into a shell, i.e., cartoons, tv-shows, etc. Anytime something happens that offends these people we reverse ourselves. South Park being a good example. The guy in Florida is a nut and I don't support what he did. Yes, he should stand to the criticism he brought on himself but that is about the end of the line with me.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 11:06 AM
And why are they fighting the Islamic political extremist? Could it be because they pose a threat to us and our way of life?

We fight them because they are actively and violently opposed to American political, social, and economic interests in the region. We fight them for retribution from September 11th and for deterrence purposes of preventing another September 11th.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 11:10 AM
We fight them because they are actively and violently opposed to American political, social, and economic interests in the region. We fight them for retribution from September 11th and for deterrence purposes of preventing another September 11th.

In other words they pose a threat to our security and way of life.

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 11:14 AM
In other words they pose a threat to our security

I'd say yes.

and way of life.

I'd say no. Especially if our way of life is burning Qur'ans.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 11:17 AM
In other words they pose a threat to our security and way of life.

They do, but not in the sense that they are acting to with the purpose of curbing our First Amendment rights, which our soldiers are thus going off to protect. That's not the issue here.

Baby Lee
04-05-2011, 11:18 AM
It's not like the Quran burning is the sole reason they're fighting. They're also fighting for Bridalplasty, MTV's Skins, Gay pride parades, Barely 18 magazine, Charlie Sheen's fists of fury, Mapplethorpe's loving photographs of bullwhips in male anuses, Pisschrist, Jaywow and the Situation, Bonnaroo, Burning Man, Fred Phelps, Howard Stern's Lesbian Dial-a-Date, Zubazz in all 32 NFL colors, leggings with fanny packs, Equus, the films of Harmonie Korein, etc., etc.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 11:20 AM
I'd say yes.



I'd say no. Especially if our way of life is burning Qur'ans.

Free Speech is our way of life.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 11:21 AM
They do, but not in the sense that they are acting to with the purpose of curbing our First Amendment rights, which our soldiers are thus going off to protect. That's not the issue here.

Actually yes, Jenson, they do want to curb our First Rights among other things. And to some extent they have succeeded.

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 11:24 AM
Free Speech is our way of life.

And I don't appreciate you cheapening it as you are.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 11:28 AM
Actually yes, Jenson, they do want to curb our First Rights among other things. And to some extent they have succeeded.

If the United States cut off all relations with the Middle East today, then Al-Qaeda would call victory. It's not like they are blowing up Australia because Australians have free speech. Al-Qaeda's goals are not focused on the domestic freedoms countries give their citizens.

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 11:39 AM
Let me add, Pete, that I just don't think that any group of rock squatters in Afghanistan is remotely capable of threatening our right to speak freely. If that's the reason the troops are over there, I'd just prefer they pack their shit and come home. It's my job to protect free speech. I'm not asking for their help on that one.

Calcountry
04-05-2011, 11:39 AM
Chirstianity preaches: love, forgiveness, mercy, restoration, fullfillment.

I will leave it up to the expert jihadist to explain what Islam preaches.

The preacher was wrong for doing what he did. "As much as it is possible, live at peace with everyone.".

Words for the preacher to live by, God knows I am not perfect on this.

Peace out CPlaneteers.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 12:50 PM
And I don't appreciate you cheapening it as you are.

how am I cheapening it? By poitning out that some dolt has the Right to make an idiot of himself?

petegz28
04-05-2011, 12:51 PM
Let me add, Pete, that I just don't think that any group of rock squatters in Afghanistan is remotely capable of threatening our right to speak freely. If that's the reason the troops are over there, I'd just prefer they pack their shit and come home. It's my job to protect free speech. I'm not asking for their help on that one.

They aren't? Is that why you have TV stations not allowing certain cartoons or newspapers, etc?

I'd perfer we bring them home too because this is not a war we are going to win.

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 12:59 PM
They aren't? Is that why you have TV stations not allowing certain cartoons or newspapers, etc?

I'd perfer we bring them home too because this is not a war we are going to win.

I don't get to decide what a TV station should or shouldn't air. I don't own it. Nor do I draw a cartoon, nor publish a newspaper. I don't give a shit what they choose to say or not say. It's their choice, y'know?

petegz28
04-05-2011, 01:03 PM
I don't get to decide what a TV station should or shouldn't air. I don't own it. Nor do I draw a cartoon, nor publish a newspaper. I don't give a shit what they choose to say or not say. It's their choice, y'know?

I agree. Doesn't that also apply to the dimwit in Florida though as well?

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 01:05 PM
I agree. Doesn't that also apply to the dimwit in Florida though as well?

I don't give a shit that he did it. I give a shit that he caused deaths by doing it. On that point we will never agree, apparently.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 01:18 PM
I don't give a shit that he did it. I give a shit that he caused deaths by doing it. On that point we will never agree, apparently.

I guess we won't. I don't agree that he caused the deaths. I think the people who did it caused the deaths and used him as an excuse. We shall agree to disagree, fair enough.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 01:20 PM
If the United States cut off all relations with the Middle East today, then Al-Qaeda would call victory. It's not like they are blowing up Australia because Australians have free speech. Al-Qaeda's goals are not focused on the domestic freedoms countries give their citizens.

They aren't? Then what is the basis for their hatred of the Western culture?

LOCOChief
04-05-2011, 01:25 PM
If the United States cut off all relations with the Middle East today, then Al-Qaeda would call victory. It's not like they are blowing up Australia because Australians have free speech. Al-Qaeda's goals are not focused on the domestic freedoms countries give their citizens.

They're not?

Baby Lee
04-05-2011, 01:32 PM
They're not?

Much the same way as when Huckabee criticizes Natalie Portman for idealizing parenthood out of wedlock, he's not concerned about all the single pregnant females in the nation. Because if he was, he'd criticize each one equally, not just NP.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 01:35 PM
Support for the jackass comes in the idea that he is doing the type of things that the soldiers are currently fighting to protect. That's a perverted view of the goals of our military and foreign policy in this war. I want to totally divorce the idea that soldiers are currently fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for the reason that we can practice hateful actions and speech towards religious groups. That issue goes far beyond just the wars in the Middle East. In fact it goes all the way back to The Revolution. I'm not making the argument we are fighting in the middle east right now so some idiot in Florida can set fire to the Koran. We're fighting in the middle east for oil. It's that simple.
One can believe in freedom and be against flag burning, if one takes the view that the flag represents freedom to the degree that burning it represents a symbolic destroying of freedom.If that's the stance they take, then they don't understand what freedom is, and what it isn't.

I'm also against graffiti on the halls of the publicly financed Congress, despite whatever important message you think you have the freedom to express.I'm not sure where I advocated that vandalism = free speech, but I do look forward to you showing me. Or admitting that I never made this argument.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 01:36 PM
They aren't? Then what is the basis for their hatred of the Western culture?

Our constant meddling in their affairs and our support of Isreal.

Just for starters, it's "Slightly" more complicated than that.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 01:46 PM
Our constant meddling in their affairs and our support of Isreal.

Just for starters, it's "Slightly" more complicated than that.

Ya think?

Calcountry
04-05-2011, 02:25 PM
I guess we won't. I don't agree that he caused the deaths. I think the people who did it caused the deaths and used him as an excuse. We shall agree to disagree, fair enough.I agree with this.

Inspector
04-05-2011, 02:52 PM
Wow, that dumbass really ticked off a lot of people. That's was really stupid.

And a lot of those who are mad are the terrorists.

I guess there is no way of knowing, but I wonder if they (the angry terrorists) are as mad now as I was after these terrorists drove their airplanes into our buildings, beheaded our citizens and took Americans as hostages.

I wonder if the rage they now feel equals my own at the sight of so many folks dancing and cheering in the streets after so many innocent Americans died when some idiots drove planes into our buildings.

I guess I'll never know unless one of the terrorists sympathizers here have any inside knowledge that they might share.

Probably not. Guess I'll never know. Oh well.

What a screwed up world we're in right now. Be safe all. Prayers to all who have family and/or friends over seas.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:18 PM
They aren't? Then what is the basis for their hatred of the Western culture?

I don't think Muslim extremists would have a problem with Western culture if they didn't feel it was some threat to their own way of life.

ForeverChiefs58
04-05-2011, 03:19 PM
I find it funny that some who say this puts american lives in danger were the same ones that defended the rights of wikileaks and what they did. Let's you in on their true agenda, doesn't it Direckshun?

I also love how a guy burns a book, crazies react by killing dozens and cutting off innocent people's heads, and people condem it by saying the guy that burns the book is the dumb asshole who should have harm to him by upsetting the nut wackjob violent muslims. Go figure.

I had a law class that actually had a guy saying Playboy type magazines should be outlawed because it caused men to get worked up and go rape someone.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 03:22 PM
I don't think Muslim extremists would have a problem with Western culture if they didn't feel it wasn't some threat to their own way of life.

Ah, I see. Makes sense. Do you think however we wouldn't be over there fighting if we didn't think they were a threat to ours?

LOCOChief
04-05-2011, 03:26 PM
I don't think Muslim extremists would have a problem with Western culture if they didn't feel it wasn't some threat to their own way of life.

Well you're wrong again.

"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29


All you have to be is a "unbeliever"

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:27 PM
I'm not sure where I advocated that vandalism = free speech, but I do look forward to you showing me. Or admitting that I never made this argument.

It's just the point that there is a limit to our freedom of speech. Standing inside a church screaming that God isn't real on Sunday morning isn't protected. Neither is putting political bumper stickers on the Washington Monument. Neither is putting up burning crosses with the intent to intimidate.

We have a lot of limits, and it might be reasonable to say that burning the very symbol of freedom should be met with some type of fine.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 03:28 PM
It's just the point that there is a limit to our freedom of speech. Standing inside a church screaming that God isn't real on Sunday morning isn't protected. Neither is putting political bumper stickers on the Washington Monument. Neither is putting up burning crosses with the intent to intimidate.

We have a lot of limits, and it might be reasonable to say that burning the very symbol of freedom should be met with some type of fine.

Why can't I stand in a church and say God isn't real? I've never heard that one.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:29 PM
I find it funny that some who say this puts american lives in danger were the same ones that defended the rights of wikileaks and what they did. Let's you in on their true agenda, doesn't it Direckshun?

I also love how a guy burns a book, crazies react by killing dozens and cutting off innocent people's heads, and people condem it by saying the guy that burns the book is the dumb asshole who should have harm to him by upsetting the nut wackjob violent muslims. Go figure.

I had a law class that actually had a guy saying Playboy type magazines should be outlawed because it caused men to get worked up and go rape someone.

When you're taking care of a suicidal person, you don't put a loaded gun on his nightstand.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 03:30 PM
When you're taking care of a suicidal person, you don't put a loaded gun on his nightstand.

So we need to pamper them?

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:31 PM
Ah, I see. Makes sense. Do you think however we wouldn't be over there fighting if we didn't think they were a threat to ours?

I had to edit that to make it correct, btw.

If we didn't think Al-Qaeda and Islamic extremists were a threat to us, we would not be over there fighting.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:34 PM
Well you're wrong again.

"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29


All you have to be is a "unbeliever"

I'm really not interested in going over your extensive understanding of Islamic theology.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 03:35 PM
It's just the point that there is a limit to our freedom of speech. Standing inside a church screaming that God isn't real on Sunday morning isn't protected. Neither is putting political bumper stickers on the Washington Monument. Neither is putting up burning crosses with the intent to intimidate.

We have a lot of limits, and it might be reasonable to say that burning the very symbol of freedom should be met with some type of fine.
There is one glaring difference between every example you used and flag burning.

I'm curious to see if you know what it is.

LOCOChief
04-05-2011, 03:35 PM
When you're taking care of a suicidal person, you don't put a loaded gun on his nightstand.



When did we start taking care of radical islamic terrorists?

go bowe
04-05-2011, 03:37 PM
I'll bet it felt good to get that shit out of your head.well, what do you expect from someone with their head so far up their ass? ;)

LOCOChief
04-05-2011, 03:39 PM
I'm really not interested in going over your extensive understanding of Islamic theology.

ROFL Kid , you're incapable of doing so. I need only spend 2 minutes here to see just how wet you are behind the ears.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:40 PM
Why can't I stand in a church and say God isn't real? I've never heard that one.

Because your city has some ordinance against those acts.

ForeverChiefs58
04-05-2011, 03:41 PM
I condemn most anything that unnecessarily puts our troops in harm's way.
Because I am a serious adult, who understands what's at stake.

Really? Are you sure you're not just anti american/anti Gov't? Because I also remember you getting REALLY upset about a young terror suspect in the ME being put on a no fly list when the US thought letting him go would unnecessarily put innocent civilians in harms way.

Originally Posted by Direckshun
The DEA is involved in international espionage.

I shit you not.

Yeah, punish the whistleblowers. They are a pox upon us all.

But again, this illustrates the misdirected hostility of the Wikileaks.

The government engages in international espionage through an agency whose jurisdiction doesn't seem to imply (to put it kindly) international espionage.

A whistleblower makes this public knowledge.

And it's the whistleblower, not the government, who faces the blunt of media criticism.

If that's not all you need to know about how owned by superior forces our media is, and our obsessively easy it is to direct public anger where you need to, nothing is.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:42 PM
So we need to pamper them?

I don't know why you think the refraining from acting (burning a Koran) means pampering them. But even if it did, between pampering them by not burning a Koran, and risking the lives of soldiers and the goals of our long term policy towards the region, I'll go with the pampering.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 03:42 PM
So we need to pamper them?

I "think" his point was that we aren't doing anyone any favors by intentionally ticking the crazy people off just for the sake of doing it.

That's different than saying we need to pamper the crazy muslims. That's not the point.

The point is, that we aren't doing our troops any favors by pissing off the locals (at least according to a general who seems to know what he's doing from what I've gathered). And I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not willing to put our servicemen's lives in danger just so I can attention whore.

Now, that doesn't mean we should ban people from doing this. Again, that's not the point.

The point people seem to be missing is that the First Amendment only protects you from the Government. It doesn't protect you from private citizens calling you an asshole. It's possible for those two things to coexist just fine.

Also, calling this guy in Florida an asshole, doesn't absolve the crazy muslims from acting crazy. That also is not the point. It's entirely possible for guy in FL to be an asshole, and the people who he pisses off to be scumbags. It's not an either or situation.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:42 PM
There is one glaring difference between every example you used and flag burning.

I'm curious to see if you know what it is.

Enlighten us.

Jaric
04-05-2011, 03:43 PM
Enlighten us.

The flag is your personal property.

EDIT: Assuming it's your flag you're burning. I assumed that was sort of a given.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:44 PM
ROFL Kid , you're incapable of doing so. I need only spend 2 minutes here to see just how wet you are behind the ears.

You're too good for us here. Please refer your future comments to www.oxford.edu/islamicstudies

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:45 PM
The flag is your personal property.

EDIT: Assuming it's your flag you're burning. I assumed that was sort of a given.

No, it's your cross you're burning as well. And it's in your yard.

ForeverChiefs58
04-05-2011, 03:50 PM
When you're taking care of a suicidal person, you don't put a loaded gun on his nightstand.

Who the hell is taking care of a suicidal person?

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 03:52 PM
Who the hell is taking care of a suicidal person?

I don't know, but if you need help, I can find you someone.

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 03:56 PM
Who the hell is taking care of a suicidal person?

Abandon all metaphor, analogy, and simile any among ye who enter here.

LOCOChief
04-05-2011, 03:56 PM
You're too good for us here. Please refer your future comments to www.oxford.edu/islamicstudies

I said nothing about being too good for anyone.

Your experiences have obviously garnered you no knowledge of what you seem to want to argue about here.

I'll bet you sell lube at the mall kiosk.

Am I right or what?

ForeverChiefs58
04-05-2011, 03:57 PM
I don't know, but if you need help, I can find you someone.

:banghead:
Well, in alll fairness, you are the one that made the fucking statement! I was just wondering who you were refering to?? If that is too hard for you I can try and type slower! ;)

BigRichard
04-05-2011, 04:05 PM
Let me throw out a scenario here...

A cartoonist from lets say France publishes a cartoon depicting Mohammed and it pisses off the Muslims.

A news site here in the US runs a story about said cartoon and publishes the cartoon as part of the story even though they are told it will have dire consequences like deaths to US soldiers. Muslims are then pissed and attack and kill US soldiers and others because the news site republised the cartoon.

Is the news site to blame?

ForeverChiefs58
04-05-2011, 04:05 PM
Abandon all metaphor, analogy, and simile any among ye who enter here.

Or at least try to make them make some freaking sense!

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 04:06 PM
Let me throw out a scenario here...

A cartoonist from lets say France publishes a cartoon depicting Mohammed and it pisses off the Muslims.

A news site here in the US runs a story about said cartoon and publishes the cartoon as part of the story even though they are told it will have dire consequences like deaths to US soldiers. Muslims are then pissed and attack and kill US soldiers and others because the news site republised the cartoon.

Is the new site to blame?

To blame for what? Be very specific.

BigRichard
04-05-2011, 04:08 PM
To blame for what? Be very specific.

Are they to blame for any of the deaths?

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 04:21 PM
Are they to blame for any of the deaths?

I certainly would blame them for causing the killings in the time, place and manner they happened, and for creating a set of conditions that could reasonably be expected to result in those killings. However, I would not be willing to compromise their right to publish (especially prior to any killing they may or may not cause) simply to prevent them from being a catalyst for any result of their decision to publish.

I would blame the killers for the actual killings.

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 04:24 PM
Let me ask you one before I go to pick up my daughter:

Is it possible for a law enforcement officer to go so far as to cause someone to commit a crime that he might otherwise not commit? Is a perpetrator always to blame solely and entirely for all elements of a crime?

BigRichard
04-05-2011, 04:37 PM
Let me ask you one before I go to pick up my daughter:

Is it possible for a law enforcement officer to go so far as to cause someone to commit a crime that he might otherwise not commit? Is a perpetrator always to blame solely and entirely for all elements of a crime?

I would say there are physical actions that can be taken to cause someone to commit a crime. For an extreme example, I hold a gun to your head and tell you to commit a crime.

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 05:11 PM
I would say there are physical actions that can be taken to cause someone to commit a crime. For an extreme example, I hold a gun to your head and tell you to commit a crime.

Fair enough. I imagine that most of us could agree on that. In your opinion, is there nothing short of physical force that could cause someone to commit a crime that they otherwise might not commit?

Jaric
04-05-2011, 05:15 PM
No, it's your cross you're burning as well. And it's in your yard.

Ummmm....

That's not generally how the KKK works when trying to intimidate people.

Usually they're burning a cross on YOUR lawn.

ForeverChiefs58
04-05-2011, 05:28 PM
Fair enough. I imagine that most of us could agree on that. In your opinion, is there nothing short of physical force that could cause someone to commit a crime that they otherwise might not commit?

No. Well, unless they draw an unsavory cartoon of Garfield or if they set fire to a bunch of John Grisham books, because for crying out loud there is only so much I can take. He has a book called "A Time to Kill" that just speaks the truth ya know.

;)

petegz28
04-05-2011, 06:02 PM
Because your city has some ordinance against those acts.

Is there such a thing? I've never heard of such and would think that any law preventing you from saying there isn't a God would be a direct violation of your 1st. However I could see where the church might throw you off their property. But a law?

petegz28
04-05-2011, 06:05 PM
Fair enough. I imagine that most of us could agree on that. In your opinion, is there nothing short of physical force that could cause someone to commit a crime that they otherwise might not commit?

Threat of physical force to a loved one, e.g. someone holds a gun to your son's head and tells you to commit a crime.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 06:16 PM
Ummmm....

That's not generally how the KKK works when trying to intimidate people.

Usually they're burning a cross on YOUR lawn.

Imagine the convenience when your target is the black family next door or across the street.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 06:24 PM
Is there such a thing? I've never heard of such and would think that any law preventing you from saying there isn't a God would be a direct violation of your 1st. However I could see where the church might throw you off their property. But a law?

You'll have to take my word for it. You don't have a right to stand in a church while mass is going on yelling that God isn't real.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 06:26 PM
You'll have to take my word for it. You don't have a right to stand in a church while mass is going on yelling that God isn't real.

I've never heard of such a thing being illegal. If you could, I'd like to see some sort of link. I am not sayin your are lying or wrong, just would like to see more about it.

Baby Lee
04-05-2011, 06:40 PM
Imagine the convenience when your target is the black family next door or across the street.

I would imagine the so inclined to either insulate themselves from such a contingency or move on long before the need for pyrotechnics.

ClevelandBronco
04-05-2011, 06:53 PM
Threat of physical force to a loved one, e.g. someone holds a gun to your son's head and tells you to commit a crime.

I'm not surprised that you'd rather not offer a serious answer.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 06:57 PM
I'm not surprised that you'd rather not offer a serious answer.

Why is that not a serious answer? Outside of physical threat, what could possible force you to commit a crime?

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 07:03 PM
I've never heard of such a thing being illegal. If you could, I'd like to see some sort of link. I am not sayin your are lying or wrong, just would like to see more about it.

The origins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brawling_%28legal_definition%29

Iowa, and most states, it would be prosecuted under Disorderly Conduct: 723.4 Disorderly conduct.
A person commits a simple misdemeanor when the person does any of the following:
1. Engages in fighting or violent behavior in any public place or in or near any lawful assembly of persons, provided, that participants in athletic contests may engage in such conduct which is reasonably related to that sport.
2. Makes loud and raucous noise in the vicinity of any residence or public building which causes unreasonable distress to the occupants thereof.
3. Directs abusive epithets or makes any threatening gesture which the person knows or reasonably should know is likely to provoke a violent reaction by another.
4. Without lawful authority or color of authority, the person disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons by conduct intended to disrupt the meeting or assembly.

Or the state could be like New Mexico, which explicitly states:

Sec. 18-4-3. - Disturbance of public worship or public assemblage.

It shall be unlawful for any person to disturb any congregation or assemblage for religious worship or any lawful assemblage or gathering of persons whatever by making offensive or improper noise or other disturbance.

That this didn't intuitively make sense to you says something about your ignorance of the "real world" you always say you know so much of.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 07:05 PM
I would imagine the so inclined to either insulate themselves from such a contingency or move on long before the need for pyrotechnics.

Probably the general move, but look, the kid/burner in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul lived right across the street from the black family whose yard he did the cross-burning in.

BigRichard
04-05-2011, 07:24 PM
Fair enough. I imagine that most of us could agree on that. In your opinion, is there nothing short of physical force that could cause someone to commit a crime that they otherwise might not commit?

I could think of a couple of other examples but I am not sure how you would do it to someone. If you were somehow starving someone and the only way they could get food was to steal some food maybe. Give me an example of something you might be getting at.

petegz28
04-05-2011, 07:26 PM
The origins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brawling_%28legal_definition%29

Iowa, and most states, it would be prosecuted under Disorderly Conduct:

Or the state could be like New Mexico, which explicitly states:



That this didn't intuitively make sense to you says something about your ignorance of the "real world" you always say you know so much of.

New Mexico slightly aside, it is more for disorderly conduct that saying "there is no God".

orange
04-05-2011, 07:29 PM
I could think of a couple of other examples but I am not sure how you would do it to someone. If you were somehow starving someone and the only way they could get food was to steal some food maybe. Give me an example of something you might be getting at.

Could any of these perhaps lead you to arson, vandalism, assault, maybe even treason?



He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Jenson71
04-05-2011, 07:32 PM
Standing inside a church screaming that God isn't real on Sunday morning isn't protected.

New Mexico slightly aside, it is more for disorderly conduct that saying "there is no God".

Are you deliberately acting like a moron, or does it just unintentionally come off that way?

petegz28
04-05-2011, 07:37 PM
Are you deliberately acting like a moron, or does it just unintentionally come off that way?

According to the ordinance it wouldn't matter what I said if I was trying to be obnoxious and disorderly. I could stand up and yell the priest wears panties and be arrested just the same.