Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/
asia/02afghanistan.html

Recently, that minister from Florida, Terry Jones, went ahead and burned a Quran. In response, a whole bunch of Afghans attacked a UN outpost, killing several Nepalese, Scandinavian, and Eastern European aid workers. I'm annoyed because I saw Tim Padgett at Time:

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/04 /02/karzais-guilt-his-cynical-and-deadly -exploitation-of-a-koran-burning/

Padgett said that the Afghans are to blame for the attacks, but spent half to 2/3 of his article criticising Jones, in much harsher tones than the armed mob that killed a dozen people, or the political leaders who whipped up the frenzy.

Is it unreasonable for someone to destroy a piece of his own property to protest terrorism?

Regardless of whether you believe mainstream Islam is to blame for Islamist terror, clearly Jones does believe that. Is that an unreasonable belief? There is a pretty strong correlation between international terror attacks and Islamic faith. You don't see the same kind of thing from Catholics.

And no, Jones' beliefs are clearly not racist, because religion and culture do not a race make.

Why shouldn't he burn a Quran? Because it'll incite violence? I think the mob participants were just looking for an excuse to go nuts, why should we pay any heed at all to their reaction? And if we shut people up because we're afraid of the backlash, why shouldn't I organize a lynch mob every time a politician comes out with a policy I disagree with? The police will tell him he can't perform his elected duties because we'll burn down the town if he tries.

Padgett essentially uses an argument similar to ones made by Progressives during Jim Crow, that if blacks were not separated from whites, whites would attack them. Is that a bad analogy?

Would it be unreasonable to ask the Afghans and other Muslims who become involved in lynch mobs to grow up? You don't see mobs of Americans going out and storming the Lebanese embassy every time some group of jerks burns a US flag on TV, so why the heck are we enabling these sorts of mobs in the Mid-east by attacking eccentrics like Terry Jones? Wouldn't the best policy be to keep destroying Qurans until Afghans get tired of forming lynch mobs, rather than trying to suppress guys like Jones?

Furthermore, it should not be the business of the US federal government to get involved in a non-violent protest from a private citizen, but here it is, leaders in the Senate are considering investigations.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Harry Reid-QuranBurning-Afghanistan-/2011/04/0 3/id/391567

Ironically, the bigger an issue they make of Quran burning, the more Qurans are going to be burned, assumedly. Which means the problem might sort itself out on its own; like I said before, the antidote to similar violence is probably more Quran burnings, and more irreverence targeted toward Islamic practice.

In sum, I believe Jones has the right to burn Qurans if he wants to, while insults and attacks directed toward him are misguided, because they miss the underlying point, which is that extremism in certain segments of Afghan society are the real problem, not eccentric political protests.

These protesters seem to believe that Qur'an burners represent America. By the same token Americans like to look to this small group of radicals and claim that they represent Islam and the Muslim world. It's all bullshit. This man has every right to burn a few Qur'ans. Doesn't change the fact that he's an asshole for doing it.

At 4/3/11 03:18 PM, gmercerd wrote: There is a pretty strong correlation between international terror attacks and Islamic faith. You don't see the same kind of thing from Catholics.

Yes there is, it's just that it isn't as easy to critizise catholicism without someone you know getting upset, since you live in a mostly christian state, and a large part of the media does whatever it can to create resentment between muslims and the west (not just portraying muslims as bad to the western world, but also making a big show whenever some retard goes burning a quran, painting muhammed with a bomb in his head or whatever).

IRA, Army of God, Lambs of Christ... There's plenty of christian terror groups. And islamic terror in the western world is pretty minor compared to separatist terrorism; in europe 2010, only a single act of terrorism where connected to islamism, while 237 where from separatists (and an additional bunch from left- or rightwing activists or single issue groups).

Why shouldn't he burn a Quran? Because it'll incite violence? I think the mob participants were just looking for an excuse to go nuts, why should we pay any heed at all to their reaction? And if we shut people up because we're afraid of the backlash, why shouldn't I organize a lynch mob every time a politician comes out with a policy I disagree with? The police will tell him he can't perform his elected duties because we'll burn down the town if he tries.

Well, he shouldn't do it because it's retarded. If he isn't knowledgable of the international situation in respect to muslims and terrorism, maybe he should read up a bit before doing anything that's seen as very insulting to these people. If he IS knowledgable of the situation, then it's just plain stupid to "protest islamic terrorism" in the probably least effective and most risky way possible.

And there's kind of a big difference between saying someone is retarded for burning a quran, and demanding he should be forbidden to do it.

You don't see mobs of Americans going out and storming the Lebanese embassy every time some group of jerks burns a US flag on TV

Could have something to do with lebanon not bombing the US on a regular basis and americans generally not living under extremely harsh circumstances.

In sum, I believe Jones has the right to burn Qurans if he wants to, while insults and attacks directed toward him are misguided, because they miss the underlying point, which is that extremism in certain segments of Afghan society are the real problem, not eccentric political protests.

So, because extremism in certain segments of a society of 28 million people, we should burn the holy book of a billion people. Yeah, that's retarded. Bigtime retarded.

Burning the quran doesn't say "certain segments of afghan society are problematic", it says "islam should be eradicated" to those seeing it.

Now, I'd be the first to celebrate if everyone stopped having delusional ideas about guys in the clouds dictating our lives, and I'm the first to agree that islamism is a dangerous ideology with often fascistoid tendencies and that we should definately see growing islamism as the problem it is.

What this guy is doing though, is kind of like seeing a burning building, and instead of trying to get people out he's pouring fuel on it screaming "IF WE JUST GET ENOUGH PETROL OVER HERE WE CAN SUFFOCATE IT!!!".

At 4/3/11 05:06 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 4/3/11 03:18 PM, gmercerd wrote: There is a pretty strong correlation between international terror attacks and Islamic faith. You don't see the same kind of thing from Catholics.

Yes there is, it's just that it isn't as easy to critizise catholicism without someone you know getting upset, since you live in a mostly christian state, and a large part of the media does whatever it can to create resentment between muslims and the west (not just portraying muslims as bad to the western world, but also making a big show whenever some retard goes burning a quran, painting muhammed with a bomb in his head or whatever).

IRA, Army of God, Lambs of Christ... There's plenty of christian terror groups. And islamic terror in the western world is pretty minor compared to separatist terrorism; in europe 2010, only a single act of terrorism where connected to islamism, while 237 where from separatists (and an additional bunch from left- or rightwing activists or single issue groups).

Christian =/= Catholic, bro. Catholicism gets flak all the time by Christians in this country because it is the relative minority (20% isn't too bad, but it is compared to the 60+% of non-Catholic Christians). 'Pope will burn in hell' signs, Crucifix burnings (at least back with the KKK), general hatred for the Church (generally exercised by non-Catholic Christians, by the way)... it's nowhere near the levels of Islam hatred, but it is fairly prominent.

Backward associations are incorrect. Don't lump em' all together like that.

For the OP, yeah, that guy was a moron. He had the right to do what he did, but... well, rights can be abused. While I don't support taking his right away, I do want to acknowledge that his actions are a perfect example of an abuse of the privilege.

At 4/3/11 05:06 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: IRA, Army of God, Lambs of Christ... There's plenty of christian terror groups. And islamic terror in the western world is pretty minor compared to separatist terrorism; in europe 2010, only a single act of terrorism where connected to islamism, while 237 where from separatists (and an additional bunch from left- or rightwing activists or single issue groups).

Oh, here we go again. Look, bar-none, Islamic terrorist groups are the most dangerous ones facing the West, and especially the United States. Abortion protesters who kill a doctor and anarchists who burn down a building are not even close to the same league as those who killed thousands on 9/11.

Well, he shouldn't do it because it's retarded. If he isn't knowledgable of the international situation in respect to muslims and terrorism, maybe he should read up a bit before doing anything that's seen as very insulting to these people.

Why? Why cater to their ignorance? He should just censor himself because some thugs thousands of miles away threaten violence?
Burning the Koran is a great way to show what's at stake in these countries everyone wants to run away from. What we see now is the result of decades or centuries of a stagnant and/or oppressive lifestyle. Abandoning the fledgling gains we've fought over this far only prolongs the rampant ignorance and barbarity.

Could have something to do with lebanon not bombing the US on a regular basis and americans generally not living under extremely harsh circumstances.

Oh boo hoo. They live a tough life? I guess that makes it "understandable" that they would storm a building owned by a completely uninvolved organization and murder and decapitate some of the people there.
There's no excuse for the violence, and there's no legitimate reason for them to protest at all.
"We are displeased that this guy burned a book we like." Grow up.

So, because extremism in certain segments of a society of 28 million people, we should burn the holy book of a billion people. Yeah, that's retarded. Bigtime retarded.

Nope. Burning the Koran acheived exactly what he wanted.

Burning the quran doesn't say "certain segments of afghan society are problematic", it says "islam should be eradicated" to those seeing it.

And what if it does? The average Afghani can't help but fly into a murderous rage if a Westerner does something offensive? We should cater to the "inherent deficiencies" of Arab Muslims like we would some dangerous animal or child race?

At 4/3/11 06:43 PM, adrshepard wrote: Look, bar-none, Islamic terrorist groups are the most dangerous ones facing the West,

True or not, that doesn't give us a free ticket to hate and insult the entire religion.

Aren't we just retreading old ground now?

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1188 911

Does this preacher have the right to do so? Yes. Is it in good taste? No. Still, did he know how uneasy the tensions between Islam and the West is? Of course he did. The point here is he knew what the possible consequence of his action would be and he still did so for what? Acting more like a dick? As far as I'm concerned, the blood is on his hands. And it's international blood, not just American blood.

Moral of the story? Think before you leap. Long and hard.

Not going to pretend that I'm an expert on the subject or anything, but I consistently see on television of people burning the American flag. In fact, burning the flag remains a legal form of protest despite much opposition.

So if it is legal to burn an American flag, as they often do, why do they get so pissed when one burns the Quran? It is not as if someone thousands of miles away has a difference in their everyday lives. Why cant they just look past someone else's beliefs and go on with life? Because killing innocent UN lives isn't going to solve anything.

So from an outsiders perspective it seems like it is stupid people acting impulsively. How is this incorrect?

At 4/3/11 08:47 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote: So if it is legal to burn an American flag, as they often do, why do they get so pissed when one burns the Quran? It is not as if someone thousands of miles away has a difference in their everyday lives. Why cant they just look past someone else's beliefs and go on with life? Because killing innocent UN lives isn't going to solve anything.

True, but consider this: there's a huge cultural difference. Just because "we" can accept other peoples beliefs and live our lives (well, maybe not all of us. But the point stands) doesn't mean other cultures can do the same. Whether or not that's good or bad is irrelevant, but you do have to consider the cultural, social, and political differences between the two countries. Holding everyone to our standard can't and will not work.

Is it a shame this happened this way? Yes. But here's a metaphor that I heard about this situation:

You're outside a cave with a trumpet. There's a bear inside the cave along with your buddy scientist who's looking at the bear. If you decide to blow your trumpet, most likely your buddy isn't going to survive when the bear wakes up as the bear's going to get angry. What do you do? You know every outcome of the situation. It's entirely in your control.

At 4/3/11 07:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: True or not, that doesn't give us a free ticket to hate and insult the entire religion.

Of course it does. Talk is cheap, and anyone can say anything about anyone. Part of being an adult is coping with that fact without exploding into a violent rage.

At 4/3/11 08:18 PM, Gario wrote: Aren't we just retreading old ground now?

Yeah but it hasn't been locked yet, and there have been some new developments.

At 4/3/11 08:59 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: True, but consider this: there's a huge cultural difference. Just because "we" can accept other peoples beliefs and live our lives (well, maybe not all of us. But the point stands) doesn't mean other cultures can do the same. Whether or not that's good or bad is irrelevant...

No, it's the entire point. Calling for the death or imprisonment of someone solely because his beliefs conflict with yours is inherently destructive. That mode of thinking has been behind nearly every single form of oppression and many horrible atrocities throughout history.

It is not a legitimate "cultural value" and we have a responsibility to stamp it out whenever and wherever we can. A civilized tolerance for other people's opinions is a Western value that deserves to be forced upon others.

At 4/3/11 08:59 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 4/3/11 08:47 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote: So if it is legal to burn an American flag, as they often do, why do they get so pissed when one burns the Quran? It is not as if someone thousands of miles away has a difference in their everyday lives. Why cant they just look past someone else's beliefs and go on with life? Because killing innocent UN lives isn't going to solve anything.

True, but consider this: there's a huge cultural difference. Just because "we" can accept other peoples beliefs and live our lives (well, maybe not all of us. But the point stands) doesn't mean other cultures can do the same. Whether or not that's good or bad is irrelevant, but you do have to consider the cultural, social, and political differences between the two countries. Holding everyone to our standard can't and will not work.

Is it a shame this happened this way? Yes. But here's a metaphor that I heard about this situation:

You're outside a cave with a trumpet. There's a bear inside the cave along with your buddy scientist who's looking at the bear. If you decide to blow your trumpet, most likely your buddy isn't going to survive when the bear wakes up as the bear's going to get angry. What do you do? You know every outcome of the situation. It's entirely in your control.

You shouldn't hang out with a scientist who studies bears in the wild but doesn't carry a gun. Get the point? It should be noted that guards at the UN compound made a conscious decision not to fire on the violent mob that broke in through the gates.

On the other hand though, doesn't it reflect poorly on the character of muslim men that they are so often compared with animals?

Do you remember this from a few years ago? A prominent Australian cleric pretty much said that Muslim men can't resist raping women who don't wear proper clothes. Apologies, the original news site was no longer listed on CNN.

http://thewaterglass.net/?p=2021

"[Sheik Taj Aldin al Hilali was] quoted in the Australian newspaper as saying in the sermon: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's... The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he was quoted as saying, referring to the headdress worn by some Muslim women.

It seems to me that saying we should expect less from a certain person or group makes them less adult, or less human, since rationality is an important attribute of humanity.

I definitely don't think we should be making excuses for inexcusable crimes, because it dehumanizes the criminal.

At 4/3/11 10:12 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, it's the entire point. Calling for the death or imprisonment of someone solely because his beliefs conflict with yours is inherently destructive. That mode of thinking has been behind nearly every single form of oppression and many horrible atrocities throughout history.

It is not a legitimate "cultural value" and we have a responsibility to stamp it out whenever and wherever we can. A civilized tolerance for other people's opinions is a Western value that deserves to be forced upon others.

Wait, isn't that another form of oppression? No wonder the world often hates America...

By the way, calling for the oppression of those that don't believe in your belief (of tolerance) is technically just as destructive. You'd be willing to lead a campaign against those that are intolerant of other's beliefs? Goodbye anyone who has any religious affiliations at all - virtually anyone religious draws a line as to what they can tolerate (and there are far more of these people than 'tolerant' people in the world... and that's not to mention those non-religious that don't tolerate other's beliefs). That would make all other oppressions pale in comparison.

At 4/3/11 10:46 PM, Gario wrote: Wait, isn't that another form of oppression? No wonder the world often hates America...

By the way, calling for the oppression of those that don't believe in your belief (of tolerance) is technically just as destructive. You'd be willing to lead a campaign against those that are intolerant of other's beliefs?

I'd keep my targeted belief systems to those such as "anyone who destroys a certain mass-produced book I like deserves to die" and the like. I'll find some way to manage the crippling moral ambiguity and soul-searching that entails.

At 4/3/11 10:58 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 4/3/11 10:46 PM, Gario wrote: Wait, isn't that another form of oppression? No wonder the world often hates America...

By the way, calling for the oppression of those that don't believe in your belief (of tolerance) is technically just as destructive. You'd be willing to lead a campaign against those that are intolerant of other's beliefs?

I'd keep my targeted belief systems to those such as "anyone who destroys a certain mass-produced book I like deserves to die" and the like. I'll find some way to manage the crippling moral ambiguity and soul-searching that entails.

Yeah, that's going to have an affect on... one group of religious people I can think of. May as well just come out and say 'Let's kill those damn Muslims that are getting angry at the sacrilege on their holy book & the intolerance against their religion'. Wouldn't that be cleaner and get to the point faster? That would also make you look rather savage - people get upset at public displays of sacrilege, to the point that riots and, yes, death at times occur. For a Christian example, someone from Westboro came to my university once and through his sacrilege (and the sacrilege from those in the crowd, in response) caused all sorts of anger and even nearly started a riot or two (thankfully the police stopped anything from escalating). Bible burnings, public displays of homosexual embrace and kissing (Truly I wouldn't mind except it was solely to piss off Christians, not to represent love), hateful shouting, it had it all. The second time I brought up this story today - man, what a day.

The point is, if the police didn't intervene there could've been some serious injuries from the rioting (due solely to the blatant attacks on everyone's beliefs), which makes this situation analogous (if a little less extreme) than the Muslims across the ocean. Tell me, who would you punish, the 'pastor' & his followers for being intolerant of other people's belief, the people that wanted to take the 'pastor' down due to his intolerance of their belief or both? Pick your words carefully.

At 4/3/11 05:06 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Yes there is, it's just that it isn't as easy to critizise catholicism without someone you know getting upset, since you live in a mostly christian state, and a large part of the media does whatever it can to create resentment between muslims and the west (not just portraying muslims as bad to the western world, but also making a big show whenever some retard goes burning a quran, painting muhammed with a bomb in his head or whatever).

I'm sorry, this doesn't hold water. Piss Christ, anyone? The Virgin Mary covered in porno pics and smeared with elephant dung? People spit on Christians all the time. And, while they are hardly silent about it, no violence ever follows.

Crap moral equivalence.

IRA, Army of God, Lambs of Christ... There's plenty of christian terror groups. And islamic terror in the western world is pretty minor compared to separatist terrorism; in europe 2010, only a single act of terrorism where connected to islamism, while 237 where from separatists (and an additional bunch from left- or rightwing activists or single issue groups).

Sorry, but this is, quite frankly, bullshit. Last Ramadan alone, there were over a hundred instances of Islamic attacks against "heretics" in England. One month, in one country.

This link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ter rorist_incidents,_2010
lists 18 seperate attacks directly tied to major terrorist organizations in Europe.

You're full of it.

Well, he shouldn't do it because it's retarded. If he isn't knowledgable of the international situation in respect to muslims and terrorism, maybe he should read up a bit before doing anything that's seen as very insulting to these people. If he IS knowledgable of the situation, then it's just plain stupid to "protest islamic terrorism" in the probably least effective and most risky way possible.

Why? Do you think about how people will take your words before you call them something? Personally, I think he's doing the world a great service. Calling him a retard for refusing to bow to pressure is, to me, offensive.

Don't worry...I won't kill you or anything tho.

Could have something to do with lebanon not bombing the US on a regular basis and americans generally not living under extremely harsh circumstances.

That is retarded logic. Sorry, there's nothing intelligent to respond to there.

So, because extremism in certain segments of a society of 28 million people, we should burn the holy book of a billion people. Yeah, that's retarded. Bigtime retarded.

That extremism is widespread and fatal to hundreds of thousands a year. Protesting that is a wonderful thing.

Burning the quran doesn't say "certain segments of afghan society are problematic", it says "islam should be eradicated" to those seeing it.

That's the point though. If Muslims are taking to the street to murder and rape and kill when they are offended...Islam IS a problem to the world and SHOULD be eradicated. If it's followers cannot be expected to respond without massive violence to any perceived insult...they are a threat to the world in general.

What this guy is doing though, is kind of like seeing a burning building, and instead of trying to get people out he's pouring fuel on it screaming "IF WE JUST GET ENOUGH PETROL OVER HERE WE CAN SUFFOCATE IT!!!".

That's not what it is at all. And if that's how you see it, you aren't smart enough to go forward in this debate.

At 4/3/11 05:23 PM, MrPercie wrote: He doesnt NEED to burn a quran in his daily life. If someone said I had to freedom to burn a holy book which is very important to a religion, I still wouldnt because I dont want to be an asshole.

You don't need to call him an asshole. Should I protest you?

Yeah, you may BELIEVE what ever the fuck you want but that doesnt make it right to DO what ever the fuck you want. You can believe theres a correlation between islam and terroism but still, again, its not his place to be burning qurans in order fight terroism, Im sure americas goverment and military can deal with that with the amount of money and resources they get but i dont think some priest burning a book is gunna help shit.

Who cares if it helps? He has a right to burn it because he spent his money on a copy, and he wants to burn it. That he's making a valid statement at the same time makes it even more protect-worthy.

Racism is just used as people forget the words to describe a type of hatred people have towards a certain group. His beliefs are still anti-islam and with the amount of arabs being islamic you might aswell call it racism.

If you're stupid, you'll call it racism. Equating disliking an ideology with "race" is moronic.

Because the middle east is still in bad shape with all the terroists going on and I think were more focused on those things rather than making sure every muslim doesnt protest when someone burns a quran. When were trying to fight an enemy (taliban) which have the same beliefs as the innocent people in the same country, insulting and disrespecting that religion will only turn those guys towards terroism.

That's borderline illiterate. So, because we're at war...bye bye freedom of speech? What nonsense!

Well they dont know that by protesting people are going to burn more qurans. i couldnt give a shit if some kid at my school bruned a quran in order to be "cool" or something but if the little shit thought it would be a good idea to record it then show it to every fucking muslim in the world aint gunna help. And besides, we can stop muslims being violent by simpler/mature methods rather than burning books till they rage out.

I'm sorry, what? No, that's not how life works. If someone learns that responding violently to something they don't like will get that something to go away...they will instinctively respond more violently in the future. The best way to deal with people who riot over this is to shoot them in the head and kill them. Teaches other people that wanton murder, rape, and pillage are not acceptable forms of "counter debate".

which he does, but organising it so that the meida hears about it which leads to many muslims getting angry and posssibly protesting/fighting is not what i think he should be doing.

Tough. You're a kid who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

At 4/3/11 08:08 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: BAD PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS! ACCEPT IT! For fuck's sake, people! This is no better than when Jack Thompson blamed V-TECH on Counter-Strike. You simply can not blame peaceful expression for violent acts that were committed by violent people. If I were to shoot someone, then blame it on a Spongebob episode after I'm caught, does that mean that Spongebob is to blame? Or does it mean that I am simply full of shit?

Jack Thompson was an idiot. There was no connection. Yet when someone kills someone else for insulting their religion, the religion is the connection. Refusing to acknowledge the obvious helps no one.

At 4/3/11 08:59 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: You're outside a cave with a trumpet. There's a bear inside the cave along with your buddy scientist who's looking at the bear. If you decide to blow your trumpet, most likely your buddy isn't going to survive when the bear wakes up as the bear's going to get angry. What do you do? You know every outcome of the situation. It's entirely in your control.

How is this equivalent? Unless we are saying that Muslims are imbecilic animalistic creatures, unable to reason, debate or think...and that we should equate them to monstrous bears...this analogy holds no water.

At 4/3/11 10:46 PM, Gario wrote: Wait, isn't that another form of oppression? No wonder the world often hates America...

By the way, calling for the oppression of those that don't believe in your belief (of tolerance) is technically just as destructive...

Screech noise! Nope, stop.

It's called rule of law. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything. But I expect that, if my neighbor and I disagree, that we will discuss it like adults, and that he won't go behead the neighbor's children in a fit of anger. And if he does, we will put a nice shiny bullet in his temple and kill him.

Anyone who is not tolerant of others' right to exist if a disagreement arises...should themselves not exist. If you are incapable of dealing with people who aren't you and not murdering them...we execute you and remove your worthless self from humanity. Or, at the very least, lock you away in a tiny cage forever.

That's not "intolerance". It's civilization.

At 4/4/11 02:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Anyone who is not tolerant of others' right to exist if a disagreement arises...should themselves not exist.

The irony is that you just said that Islam should be eradicated. Of course, it -- and all other religions -- should be, but what you are essentially doing here is saying that you are "intolerant" to people who are "intolerant", while being "intolerant" to the beliefs of Muslims.

And all the while, there is nothing really wrong with being intolerant.

At 4/4/11 02:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Screech noise! Nope, stop.

It's called rule of law.

No it's not. It's called 'We're in a country where we don't belong enforcing laws that are not theirs'. At what point did we obtain the right to enforce our law in a foreign country? If it were in America then sure, send the offending party to prison, execute them (if it's legal), whatever - but we're talking about eradicating people in another country because we don't like what they're doing.

Those responsible for killing 7 UN officials? Yes, get rid of them - they broke international law and need to be eradicated. But that's it.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything. But I expect that, if my neighbor and I disagree, that we will discuss it like adults, and that he won't go behead the neighbor's children in a fit of anger. And if he does, we will put a nice shiny bullet in his temple and kill him.

Very nicely said. Don't know what this has to do with anything (since these people are nowhere near America or you, unless you're over there or something), but hey.

Anyone who is not tolerant of others' right to exist if a disagreement arises...should themselves not exist. If you are incapable of dealing with people who aren't you and not murdering them...we execute you and remove your worthless self from humanity. Or, at the very least, lock you away in a tiny cage forever.

And the paradox of tolerance continues, folks. There's really no answer to this, is there? So what makes your opinion more valid than theirs? In the end, it still involves killing people that don't fly with your views, in the exact same vein as they are killing people that don't agree with theirs.

Before you claim that you're saving lives, let's abstract what you're saying for a second. One party believes something, and if others don't follow it then they die. Our party believes that others should believe whatever they want (which is a belief in itself)... and if others don't follow it then they die. Exact same thing. No difference. Hence the paradox.

That's not "intolerance". It's civilization.

... by what definition, on both accounts?

At 4/3/11 06:43 PM, adrshepard wrote:

Oh, here we go again. Look, bar-none, Islamic terrorist groups are the most dangerous ones facing the West,

Really? I'm sure in Spain they would say ETA was the most dangerous terrorist group. Also bare in mind the hangover the UK has from The Troubles in Northern Ireland. Including this which happened a few days ago http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ir eland-12953967

At 4/4/11 04:18 AM, KemCab wrote: The irony is that you just said that Islam should be eradicated. Of course, it -- and all other religions -- should be, but what you are essentially doing here is saying that you are "intolerant" to people who are "intolerant", while being "intolerant" to the beliefs of Muslims.

And all the while, there is nothing really wrong with being intolerant.

There actually is. For the sake of honesty, because it illustrates my point, I think you are an imbecile. That is my God given right to claim you are an imbecile. And that's where my rights end.

If I decide that I get to kill you for disagreeing with me, then I am crossing a line that society will (and should) put me away for. If I fail, I should be put in a little box. If I succeed, a death chamber.

Refusing to pretend you are remotely intelligent is one thing...denying your right to life is another.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings. But if you think that me wanting to punish mass murder and rape and hacking off of limbs is "intolerant"...well, you're a fucking moron. And if you think that people who shoot murderers to stop them from killing innocent people are are bad as the murderers...you are the single biggest imbecile I've ever met. Do society a favor and play in traffic, retard.

At 4/4/11 04:27 AM, Gario wrote: No it's not. It's called 'We're in a country where we don't belong enforcing laws that are not theirs'. At what point did we obtain the right to enforce our law in a foreign country? If it were in America then sure, send the offending party to prison, execute them (if it's legal), whatever - but we're talking about eradicating people in another country because we don't like what they're doing.

No. We're talking about killing people in a United States Protectorate for killing US approved missionaries for no reason. Let's point out that it is illegal, worldwide, to kill, attack, or impede missionary/humanitarian aid groups.

Even under Islamic law, this is murder, punishable by death. There's not a single country I am aware of in the world where this is legal. This was a crime. And everyone involved should be executed.

Those responsible for killing 7 UN officials? Yes, get rid of them - they broke international law and need to be eradicated. But that's it.

Well, and those who killed anyone else. UN officials aren't more people than anyone else.

Very nicely said. Don't know what this has to do with anything (since these people are nowhere near America or you, unless you're over there or something), but hey.

OK. So let's bomb them. They're not near America anyways, right?

What a stupid retort.

And the paradox of tolerance continues, folks. There's really no answer to this, is there? So what makes your opinion more valid than theirs? In the end, it still involves killing people that don't fly with your views, in the exact same vein as they are killing people that don't agree with theirs.

Yet, there's no paradox. The old cannard of "my rights extend to your nose" is almost as old as man itself. We can disagree, you can call me all the hateful names you want, and vice versa. But the instant you try to hurt me, I have a right to defend myself to the fullest extent, including killing you. And if I fail, society has a right on my behalf to draw and quarter you for your crimes.

Only stupid people mistake this. There's simply no way to be nice about this. If you think that killing a murderer to prevent a murder and murdering someone are the same thing...you're insanely stupid.

The old saying is "I may disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Not, I will defend to the death your right to hack your neighbor to bits with a hatchet because she insulted your religion.

Before you claim that you're saving lives, let's abstract what you're saying for a second. One party believes something, and if others don't follow it then they die. Our party believes that others should believe whatever they want (which is a belief in itself)... and if others don't follow it then they die. Exact same thing. No difference. Hence the paradox.

I am saving lives. You're just too fucking stupid to understand it. And if your life depended on arguing this, you'd be under a blade tomorrow. Say a quiet thank you to the God you don't believe in that people like me will fight to the death to protect morons like you from savages who will kill you for your empty headedness.

I wonder, if I were to make a life-size Obama doll, strap him in a chair and commit torturous acts on that doll, make a video of it and post it on a website titled "Obama must die", if i can file this on freedom of speech when the feds are at my door.

At 4/4/11 06:25 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Threats aren't protected speech.

But that's not a threat.

Granted, different rules apply to Presidents. They are royalty after all. But if someone buys a Mylie Cyrus sex doll and "rapes" it...Mylie Scyrus can't have them put in jail for rape. Or for threatening her.

Is what he wants to do stupid? Well, sure. Is it completely legal. Absolutely.

At 4/4/11 06:25 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 4/4/11 05:43 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: I wonder, if I were to make a life-size Obama doll, strap him in a chair and commit torturous acts on that doll, make a video of it and post it on a website titled "Obama must die", if i can file this on freedom of speech when the feds are at my door.

Threats aren't protected speech.

I wouldn't threaten him in person. I just made a doll of him, which is my property, and did stuff to it, which i can because it is my property. I did say Obama must die and that is my opinion. I didn't say I would be the one who was going to kill him.

At 4/4/11 05:24 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No. We're talking about killing people in a United States Protect...

Already addressed when I said punishment for that particular crime should be administered. Try to respond after reading the entire argument next time and save yourself the embarrassment.

Even under Islamic law, this is murder, punishable by death. There's not a single country I am aware of in the world where this is legal. This was a crime. And everyone involved should be executed.

Then let them take care of it. Again, aside from those that rallied the troops to kill the UN members (that is our business, as it breaks international law), murder in the Middle East is not our business. As much as I'd love to indite Karzai for his role in this, that's considered an act of war... not something we need in that area right now.

Well, and those who killed anyone else. UN officials aren't more people than anyone else.

Not our jurisdiction. Let the people of the country take care of their own, we're not their wet nurses. At least, we damn well better not be.

Don't know what this has to do with anything (since these people are nowhere near America or you, unless you're over there or something), but hey.

OK. So let's bomb them. They're not near America anyways, right?

How is that even close to a valid response? What the hell are you talking about?

What a stupid retort.

You like hearing yourself talk, don't you? No need to narrate the argument - people can judge what is stupid and what isn't for themselves.

Yet, there's no paradox.

Yes, there is. Hey, I can argue that way too, if you want. Try giving a reason next time.

The old cannard of "my rights extend to your nose" is almost as old as man itself...

None of that is a reason why there's no paradox. Try again.

But the instant you try to hurt me, I have a right to defend myself to the fullest extent, including killing you. And if I fail, society has a right on my behalf to draw and quarter you for your crimes.

You should probably get your facts and temper checked. If someone tries to kill you then your action is justified, and even then only as a last resort, according to the law (ever heard of 'excessive force'?). If someone throws a punch then you only have the right to stop the punch and bring the person into submission, not to murder him.

Only stupid people mistake this. There's simply no way to be nice about this. If you think that killing a murderer to prevent a murder and murdering someone are the same thing...you're insanely stupid.

Let's abstract what you're saying for a second. One party believes something, and if others don't follow it then they die. Our party believes that others should believe whatever they want (which is a belief in itself)... and if others don't follow it then they die. In this case, we're not fighting to protect the innocent, or anything like that (as can easily be shown by statements earlier in this thread). We're fighting to pass on our beliefs or pluralistic tolerance. We're proposing to kill people to enforce our belief in this thread. That is absolutely no different than the people that kill in order to enforce their own beliefs.

By the way, THIS point has nothing to do with the article in the OP - This is a completely different point that is attacking some people's sentiment in this thread to simply go in there and kill everyone who is intolerant of other's beliefs (or lack of). I think you got these two arguments mixed up.

The old saying is "I may disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Not, I will defend to the death your right to hack your neighbor to bits with a hatchet because she insulted your religion.

Well then, now you've pulled some tripe that flat out lies about my position. Never have I defended people's right to 'hack your neighbor' - I only go as far as to say we have no right to be the executioners. You have no clue what my argument is, according to that post. Is it really that far above you're mental capacity?

I am saving lives. You're just too fucking stupid to understand it.

And yet I'm not the one reduced to using an a blatant ad hominem to prove my point.

Say a quiet thank you to the God you don't believe in that people like me will fight to the death to protect morons like you from savages who will kill you for your empty headedness.

Are you an American soldier? If you are then I will (and for the record, I believe very much in God, you presumptuous idiot). If you are not then please don't insult the American soldiers like that. If you're not a soldier then you are just another person who thinks that everyone who disagrees with them are morons, and in no way are you serving to protect me. It's an insult to even think that you're doing anything to 'protect me'.

Again, if you're a soldier then this does not apply to you.

Since you can't comprehend my point, I'll put it on the table for you in very basic terms. It is not Anti-American. It is not Pro-Islam. It is only Anti-Military in as far as I'm claiming it's a waste of our resources to police every detail of a nation.

Try to follow.

It is not our country, so your logic is immediately null and void. You are proposing to be the executioner to those that have little business with America (they scream and shout their protest, but aside from that they do very little). Unless the actions of the people have immediate consequences to America then we have no business to interfere, and even then opportunity should first be given to the law enforcement/military of the country in question before America becomes directly involved. The deaths in this case merit some action, but only because of the break in international law, not because the people were ranting and raving about how bad the Quran burning pastor was.

Point: We are not the peace keepers of the world on small scale events. Stop proposing that we enforce law in an area that is not in our jurisdiction. It's a waste of our time and resources.

At 4/4/11 12:38 AM, Gario wrote:

Yeah, that's going to have an affect on... one group of religious people I can think of. May as well just come out and say 'Let's kill those damn Muslims that are getting angry at the sacrilege on their holy book & the intolerance against their religion'.

I wouldn't go so far as killing, of course. But yes, I would consider those people who feel the need to protest what someone does to an inanimate object thousands of miles away to be dangerous fundamentalists in need of reeducation or a societal change that brings about more sensible future generations.
My problem is that you're taking what pretty much the entire world would consider sensible behavior, not getting crazy violent and upset over the fact someone unimportant insults you or your beliefs, and throwing it away when it applies to Middle Eastern Muslims. I don't see how you can do that without denigrating Middle Eastern Muslims entirely, since you're implying that, like children or animals, they don't have any self-control.

i'm surprised there aren't more people pissing on Karzai; considering most Afghans probably don't have internet access, and what the news report says, hes got some serious 'splaining to do.

not that anyone is going to make him...

At 4/4/11 04:40 AM, Dogbert581 wrote:

Oh, here we go again. Look, bar-none, Islamic terrorist groups are the most dangerous ones facing the West,

Really? I'm sure in Spain they would say ETA was the most dangerous terrorist group. Also bare in mind the hangover the UK has from The Troubles in Northern Ireland. Including this which happened a few days ago http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ir eland-12953967

That's because the Spanish are a bunch of pussies who surrendered to terrorists after the Madrid train bombings, which killed more people in one day that ETA had in any year.

The IRA haven't done anything on the scale of the London Subway bombings for decades.

And he chose to do it on April 1st of all occasions. Terry Jones will probably go down in history as the only evangelist Fred Phelps is actually on good terms. Seriously, JERRY FALWELL wasn't extreme enough to support Phelps. I had no idea this would actually turn out. Hopefully, even the Westboro Baptist Church will not resort to violence but if they do, who would seriously miss them? Luckily, we have denounced everyone involved.