Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

I'm completely divided between Gorjo and strife opinion. Actually I think they are both right in their own ways.

I just want to press the point that while it's a big deal in Afghanistan, nobody in non crazy Muslims countries gave a shit (Morocco, Algeria,...) and the European Muslims didn't care at all either.

[Urist is dead tome]

I just want to press the point that while it's a big deal in Afghanistan, nobody in non crazy Muslims countries gave a shit (Morocco, Algeria,...) and the European Muslims didn't care at all either.

Possibly because they couldn't justify any action they took legally.

I gotta go with Strife on this one, in that he was directly acting against the the wishes of the US. And frankly, ruining a lot of hard work to get them to work with us.

[CoughDrop]

The Pastor's action seems to parallel Draw Muhammad Day. In my opinion, I think these should be done more. Are they going to kill everyone that participates? Are they going to go batshit insane every time someone does it?

They want you to fear them, and by condemning these acts even one bit, you are helping their cause. It's not a war of morals, it's a war of fear.

[Zangi]

Yea, lets promote a deeper divide between christianity/west and islam/middle east.

It'll work out in the end, I swear.

[CoughDrop]

Yea, lets promote a deeper divide between christianity/west and islam/middle east.

It'll work out in the end, I swear.

It probably will, actually.

[RedKing]

And let's see if they respond with Stone an Adulterer Day. After all, it's legal in their country, and only shocking to us because we're "morally depraved".

Seriously, there's a disturbing lack of ability in here for people to see things from the opposite POV for a minute. I'm not saying that what they did is justified by our way of thinking, but then Pastor Jones' action is in no way justified in their way of thinking. Their rage is both logically consistent and predictable before the act, which to me makes the act itself deliberately provocative.

[Phmcw]

There is a lot of states where it's legal o have a firearm.
As far as I know, there is a lot of states where it's legal to keep a loaded firearm. And some people here think that having a loaded firearm in their house is a basic right.
The way I see it, what this pastor did is akin to letting a loaded 12 gauge shotgun on the table while inviting a psychotic killer and that killer's worst enemy for tea.
Yes, you have the right to invite whoever you want for tea. Yes it will be the killer's fault. But seriously, that is a flagrant misuse of the law, and even if the man is legally innocent, he is a scumbag.

What make it worst is that the pastor took almost no risk for himself but put the UN workers in danger (the NATO soldiers aren't in much more danger than usual).
In the other hand, it's not his fault if there is Muslim fanatics in the world, and killing is what fanatics do (for instance,  Christians fanatics tend to kill abortion doctors in the US).

What I dislike, however is the implication by some people in this thread that Islam is a religion of violence, more so  than Christianity. That is a serious lack of insight, and a serious lack of memory. At that rate, I could say that since communist movement haven't killed anyone these last years in the US, while a few anti government terrorist have killed people, Libertarianism is a violent movement, more so than communism.

Edit: and anyway, why isn't it obvious that people that live in lawless hell-holes are going to be more violent about theirs beliefs than people that lives in western (pseudo)democracy? 

[GlyphGryph]

The problem is, think of it like fighting words. Fighting words (speech designed to delibrately provoke) places upon you some responsibility for the result.

However, if you provoke someone directly and they then turn around and kill a random uninvolved third party... That's not really your fault, in any meaningful way.

Say some Islamic group DID organize a stoning. They would be responsible for that, sure - but then if some dunkass redneck posse lynches some muslims in backwater Tenessee? No, sorry, that's not the Islamic groups fault or problem.

Mr.Idiot is guilt of being an insensitive jerkwad. The Media is guilty of rewarding him for it. And the psychopaths who decided killing random UN workers is the solution to some generalized insult are responsible for murder.

[Phmcw]

I dunno, really. What he said is that "The Koran is an nefarious books and Islam is an inferior religion. We Christians are totally superior and enticed to judge you, therefore I will burn your Koran, which in your country is a crime worse than killing someone, rewarded with slow and painful death. Oh and there is a lot of unwanted Christians in your country, feel free to vent your anger on them. Thanks for listening, Bye."

Really, he may be technically innocent, but he is really stretching the boundaries of free speech.

Edit : Well, he had freedom of speech, sure, but he totally intended this reaction. So responsible or not? Can you say something when you know it will cause the death of an innocent third party?
I'd be more ok with it if it's act wasn't that meaningless I admit, so I'm completely uncertain.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

The idea that you cannot ridicule your "enemy" in wartime is preposterous.

I hope you're not the type who believes the entirety of Islam is the "enemy".  If not, this context doesn't apply.

Why is it when the forum toll gets smacked down a new one must pop up?

Was I sounding trollish?  Sorry.

By "enemy" I meant, anyone willing to murder over something like this.  I was hoping the quotation marks would show that it was a figure of speech.  I wasnt trying to imply all of Islam.  Actually, I made a point earlier about how 99.9% of Muslims didn't go rampage and kill someone, which really removes any causality from the Pastor.  If you make the case he deliberately incited muslims to violence, I think that case fails in this light.  I think you can say that the Media deliberately tried to incite violent reaction from muslims, for profit.

Question:  If he wasnt a Pastor, but instead an Artist, what would you think?  (remember the cross in the jar of urine or the cross covered in ants?)

[Kogan Loloklam]

Why is it when the forum toll gets smacked down a new one must pop up?

I figure it's because someone poured fertilizer on you.



Anyone found footage of the trial yet? I am seriously questioning if a trial ever took place. I have a theory, that they made that part up just so they have a pretend justification for burning the book.

Know who else burned books? HITLER!

Also...

Spoiler: US Code, Title 18, part 1, chapter 41, § 871. (click to show/hide)

Threats against President and successors to the Presidency (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.

So much for freedom of speech allowing people to say anything they want.

If the speech is used to incite violence or promote illegal acts it isn't really protected. You can say "I hate Alabamians" all you want, just like you can say "I wish Alabamians were all dead." It doesn't get protected like those when you say "On Tuesday, I am going to the Alabamian Convention Center and am going to shoot every Alabamian I see."
Darn Alabamians ruined my freedom of speech!

So yea, the burning of the Koran could be prosecuted if we weren't a Christian Nation full of Bigots who hate Islam for Arabs taking their Koran as seriously as the Spanish took the bible in the 15th century.
As it stands, no court would dare touch it with a 10 foot pole, and the victims weren't US citizens anyway so would have trouble bringing it to court.
(Edit: Figured I needed to add this... Prosecuted in a civil court "I TAKE YOUR MONEY!!!1!" kind of way.)


I tend to think that they had a right to burn the bible, but I also think that Muslims now have a right to put their church on trial and burn it. Anything to support a raging bonfire!

[Urist is dead tome]

There is a lot of states where it's legal o have a firearm.
As far as I know, there is a lot of states where it's legal to keep a loaded firearm. And some people here think that having a loaded firearm in their house is a basic right.
The way I see it, what this pastor did is akin to letting a loaded 12 gauge shotgun on the table while inviting a psychotic killer and that killer's worst enemy for tea.
Yes, you have the right to invite whoever you want for tea. Yes it will be the killer's fault. But seriously, that is a flagrant misuse of the law, and even if the man is legally innocent, he is a scumbag.

What make it worst is that the pastor took almost no risk for himself but put the UN workers in danger (the NATO soldiers aren't in much more danger than usual).
In the other hand, it's not his fault if there is Muslim fanatics in the world, and killing is what fanatics do (for instance,  Christians fanatics tend to kill abortion doctors in the US).

What I dislike, however is the implication by some people in this thread that Islam is a religion of violence, more so  than Christianity. That is a serious lack of insight, and a serious lack of memory. At that rate, I could say that since communist movement haven't killed anyone these last years in the US, while a few anti government terrorist have killed people, Libertarianism is a violent movement, more so than communism.

Edit: and anyway, why isn't it obvious that people that live in lawless hell-holes are going to be more violent about theirs beliefs than people that lives in western (pseudo)democracy? 

No one is saying Islam is a religion of violence. And I think that's kinda whitewashing the Crusades so the Muslims were the victims. Lets all remember how they started, people.

But overall I agree.

[GlyphGryph]

Kogan Loloklam,

I have no idea how your argument actually makes sense.

Yes, threats are not allowed. Nor are orders or active encouragement to break the law.

Pastor Jerkass did neither of those things. He merely expressed his opinion. At no point did he break any laws, at no point did he say he was going to break any laws, and at no point did he tell people to break the laws.

So no, the burning of the Koran couldn't be prosecuted (and shouldn't, imo), and it has nothing to do with being a "Christian Nation full of Bigots who hate Islam for Arabs taking their Koran as seriously as the Spanish took the bible in the 15th century."

[Urist is dead tome]

Know who else burned books? HITLER!

Because everyone loves Godwin's law!

[Criptfeind]

I figure it's because someone poured fertilizer on you.

At first I thought you were bringing a reasonable well thought out argument that accusing people of trolling is detrimental to a discussion. Then I read your post and learned you just want people to hate you. Well done.

Threats are not tolerated, because, surprise surprise they threaten people, the ability to feel safe is (to a point) more important then free speech. Darn pesky other rights huh?

I dunno, really. What he said is that "The Koran is an nefarious books and Islam is an inferior religion. We Christians are totally superior and enticed to judge you, therefore I will burn your Koran, which in your country is a crime worse than killing someone, rewarded with slow and painful death. Oh and there is a lot of unwanted Christians in your country, feel free to vent your anger on them. Thanks for listening, Bye."

Really, he may be technically innocent, but he is really stretching the boundaries of free speech.

Edit : Well, he had freedom of speech, sure, but he totally intended this reaction. So responsible or not? Can you say something when you know it will cause the death of an innocent third party?
I'd be more ok with it if it's act wasn't that meaningless I admit, so I'm completely uncertain.

Okay. Point blank question here. Did you really think his intention of this was for murder to happen a way away?  Do you really think he thought ‘OH YEAH! THIS IS GOING TO GET SOME PEOPLE KILLED!!’ Because he never freaking said that.