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



## Nomad (Apr 1, 2011)

> At least 12 people were killed in Afghanistan Friday, most of them foreigners, when a United Nations compound was stormed following a demonstration by Afghans enraged by a Florida pastors burning of a Koran, according to Afghan officials.
> 
> Thousands of protesters mobilized after a midday sermon, then surged toward the offices of the United Nations in Mazar-e-Sharif, northern Afghanistans largest city and normally a bastion of calm.
> 
> Some in the crowd broke into the U.N. office and attacked the staff, killing security guards and members of the U.N. mission, officials said.



Full story here and here.

You know, when Terry Jones first proposed to burn the Koran in a little publicity stunt last year, he was warned from multiple sources that it could lead directly to this sort of reprisal violence.  He backed down then, but apparently went through with it on Sunday.

Congratulations.  The blood of these people is on your head, you dumb (expletive of choice).


----------



## billc (Apr 1, 2011)

Actually, the blood is not on his hands.  It was a dumb thing to do, but the blood is on the hands of the actual murderers.  The same type of people who rampaged and killed people over the Muhammed cartoons, or the Theo Van Goh movie or crashed jets into the world trade center, or beat rape victims to death.  If he had burned bibles, or Hindu religous texts, no one would have died.  We need to identify the truth in an event like this, and not stand on political correctness.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 1, 2011)

IMHO, if you are warned, repeatedly, by people in the know and with authority, that your proposed actions will lead to consequences, and you go ahead with them anyway, and said consequences occur, then you share a significant part of the blame through your choice.

The results were both predictable and predicted.  He definitely has blood on his hands.

I'm not exonerating the perpetrators or condoning their actions in any way... but if you throw gasoline on a spark, don't be surprised by the fire that follows.


----------



## billc (Apr 1, 2011)

I know what you mean Nomad, but we are told everything the united states does, is a reason for muslims to become terrorists, to kill innocents, and to do bad things.  At what point does the muslim world need to stop behaving like that.  I am not trying to argue with you and I just want to discuss this topic peacefully, and I am not implying that you are doing anything else.  There are some on the study who might think I am being a troll.  I am just trying to talk about this topic which I  think we need to start looking at.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 1, 2011)

While I detest Jones. He was exercising his 1st amendment rights. I can buy a Koran at the bookstore and burn it right now if I wanted to. The people who think that the burning somehow justifies the killing of people are the ones we should be condemming IMO.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 1, 2011)

It is your _right_ to walk into a biker bar and call everyone there sissies.  It is your _right_ to walk down dark alleys in bad parts of town late at night with hundred dollar bills hanging out of your pockets.  

Just because you have the _right_ to do something doesn't make it a good idea.  In fact, it may be a phenomenally bad idea that gets you (or in this case), someone else badly hurt or killed.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 1, 2011)

The person who mugs/kills/robs you in that dark alley is the one criminally responsible and subject to arrest, no matter ho foolish the victim was.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The person who mugs/kills/robs you in that dark alley is the one criminally responsible and subject to arrest, no matter ho foolish the victim was.



Agreed.  But one of the first tenets of self-defense is to avoid doing stupid crap like this.

I'm not saying the insurgents behind this aren't directly responsible, just that the action was predictable and easily preventable.

If I told you "Don't poke the bear with a stick" and you thought... "I know, I should poke the bear with a stick!", nobody would be surprised when the bear ripped your arm off, and I don't think the bear has sole responsibility for the consequences at that point.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 1, 2011)

Agreed, but even though this tool Jones did what he did, he is no more "responsible" for how another person decides to act than the foolish victim is responsible for a thug deciding to be a thug.


----------



## granfire (Apr 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Agreed, but even though this tool Jones did what he did, he is no more "responsible" for how another person decides to act than the foolish victim is responsible for a thug deciding to be a thug.




Well, yes, he is responsible.

But somebody else paid the price for his walking down the dark alley. 

And it's not 'the Americans', the cartoons originated in Denmark, and no, I do not agree with the violent reaction if the faithful to the cartoons (or the threats made towards Southpark creators) But those are the way things are. 

It's not like knee jerk reactions like that don't happen over here, and also hitting the uninvolved. I am sure the family of the killed Sikh in the 9/11 aftermath can point to the responsible party, aside from the actual perpetrator.


----------



## billc (Apr 1, 2011)

Taking the attitude of not antagonizing the criminal, the murderer, to it's logical conclusion, if the United States renounced every religion but Islam, and every citizen lived under sharia then we wouldn't have to worry about islamic violence directed at us.  That is essentially what would be required here.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 1, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well, yes, he is responsible.
> 
> But somebody else paid the price for his walking down the dark alley.
> 
> ...


 
No. Legally he is not. How about we extend the argument to a womans dress and places she goes to "deserving" rape? 

The "he's responsible for other peoples actions" thing is bunk. He a tool and I wouldn't mind him getting his "just reward", but this "we must change our ways/laws because we may offend someone overseas and MAKE them start killing" is wrong.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 1, 2011)

Legally, he's not responsible.  

Morally?  It could definitely be argued, and I contend that he bears a significant part of the blame for ignoring the warnings of what his actions *would* lead to, for what was effectively a public relations stunt in a desperate attempt to get noticed.

You don't MAKE someone start doing bad things.  But if you're trying to put out a fire (such as, oh, I don't know, radical Islamic violence in the middle east against foreign nationals and UN staff), then gasoline is not the best choice of available solvents, either.


----------



## granfire (Apr 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> No. Legally he is not. How about we extend the argument to a womans dress and places she goes to "deserving" rape?
> 
> The "he's responsible for other peoples actions" thing is bunk. He a tool and I wouldn't mind him getting his "just reward", but this "we must change our ways/laws because we may offend someone overseas and MAKE them start killing" is wrong.




Playing the rape card, eh?
I think it falls under the same as walking down the dark alley with the money sticking out of your pockets. While you don't 'deserve' to be mugged, you are certainly part responsible for setting up the situation. 

But I think in this case he set somebody else up to take the walk. So the singular action cost 12 people he never met their lives.  
So no, he is not criminally liable, but certainly morally. 
But I think he is washing his hands of this, after all, it was them evil moslim terrorists. 

And as I recall, all over a group of people he dislikes wanting to legally use the property they purchased. I am sure we will hear a few more of these excesses come September, too.

It's no different than going down to Opelika, yelling 'F Auburn' into the crowd and then being surprised somebody beating up a group of crimson clad people. 
There is no excuse for violence, but stupidity should be equally frowned upon.

heck, even this redneck hick gal from Alabama could have told you burning the danged book was a bad idea, judging from past incidences, projecting future events. I am sure Larry Holmes would have been able to point that out. Sherlock not needed.


----------



## billc (Apr 1, 2011)

Since all it takes to drive some members of the religion of Islam to commit mass murder, is to burn the Koran, or make a movie about violence against muslim women, then there is a real problem here that not burning korans or making movies about violence against muslim women is not going to stop.  What that solution is, I don't know.  However, displacing the real blame for the murders is not a step in the direction of fixing the problem.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 1, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> No. Legally he is not. How about we extend the argument to a womans dress and places she goes to "deserving" rape?



You are aware that this exact argument has been used, successfully, and in a few cases, not very long ago, to *legally* exonerate rapists before, right?  Might not be the best analogy to draw on, actually.

In self-defense classes, we certainly warn women against deliberately placing themselves in dangerous situations because it greatly increases the odds of bad people doing bad things to them.

That's the tragedy here; this situation was sparked specifically by someone doing something stupid that placed *others* at much greater risk of harm from the "bad people".  It was both predictable and preventable.  Certainly individuals and companies have often been (rightfully) sued for huge damages through comparable negligent actions or inactions that resulted in similar predictable deaths or injury...


----------



## billc (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm sorry, but a man burning korans in the United States, in some small town, and then a bunch of muslim people going out and beheading people in Afghanistan is not the same thing as a woman walking in a really bad part of town, knowing it is dangerous.  This walking on egg shells attitude is wrong.  It rewards their behavior.  It encourages their behavior.  In reality, the people who did this need to be punished, and not reacted to as if what the guy did was the main problem in this situation.


----------



## Nomad (Apr 1, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm sorry, but a man burning korans in the United States, in some small town, and then a bunch of muslim people going out and beheading people in Afghanistan is not the same thing as a woman walking in a really bad part of town, knowing it is dangerous.  This walking on egg shells attitude is wrong.  It rewards their behavior.  It encourages their behavior.  In reality, the people who did this need to be punished, and not reacted to as if what the guy did was the main problem in this situation.



You're right.  It's closer to coming upon someone who looks pretty dangerous pointing a gun at a stranger, and saying "Oh yeah?  You don't have the balls to pull the trigger!"  

If you really think that *not* going out of your way to antagonize a violent group (exactly what Jones did) is "rewarding and encouraging their behavior", then I give up.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 1, 2011)

Nobody (as in Bill or I) are saying that what jones did was right, moral or smart. 

But focusing on HIM (who did nothing illegal) instead of asking why some nobody in the USA can be used as an excuse for murder in Afghanistan is a problem IMO. 



> the people who did this need to be punished, and not reacted to as if what the guy did was the main problem in this situation.


 
QFT

BTW what are we suggesting here? That Koran burning should be illegal? Or if some Muslims halfway around the world go on a killing frenzy because an American burns a Koran that somehow the burner should be punished???


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 1, 2011)

Nomad said:


> You are aware that this exact argument has been used, successfully, and in a few cases, not very long ago, to *legally* exonerate rapists before, right? Might not be the best analogy to draw on, actually.


 
I believe that was in Canada (and another in Australia). And is far from right or common. Many US states wont even allow a womans dress into evidence/argument. Are you arguing that its right? She was asking for it?


----------



## billc (Apr 1, 2011)

the problem is not the guy burning the korans.  korans are books made of paper, that can easily be reproduced.  The problem is with the muslims in Afghanistan who kill innocent people because a collection of pieces of paper was burnt.  End of story.  That is the problem that needs to be addressed, not the loon in the U.S. who burnt the paper.  Taking the focus off of the real problem...is the real problem.  For far too long people have tip toed around murderers, rapists and torturers because we don't want to stir them up.  That needs to end.  The problem is people who are murdering people over the burning of a book, not the book burning.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 1, 2011)

Some artist dipped the image of my God in a vat of urine. I didn't feel the burning desire to go around cutting off heads. If I did would Andres Serrano have shared the blame?

Is this the "Christians don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose" philosophy? 

[yt]lBiKHqeFPws[/yt]


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 1, 2011)

there is no excuse, no justification, these are barbaric animals we are dealing with, and anyone who denies that is friggin delusional


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 1, 2011)

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Makes sense to me. Not.

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


----------



## granfire (Apr 1, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> They are religious fanatics with a different moral compass than our own.
> 
> If Nomad walked down the street in a short skirt and FM pumps, that doesn't justify me driving to Texas and setting Twin Fist on fire.  Or vice versa.
> 
> ...




I bet a 'Whatever you do, don't push this button' would be lost on you then...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 1, 2011)

Pretty much, especially if it was read and caused mushrooms to grow in some of these places where they keep their heads in dark dank places.


----------



## billc (Apr 2, 2011)

Nomad, where did you stand on the Abu Ghraib photos, and now the kill team photos being released by the press?


----------



## granfire (Apr 2, 2011)

Ahh, the good preacher is now calling for IMMIDIATE actions to retaliate...so much for Christianity being the message of love...


----------



## Nomad (Apr 2, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Nomad, where did you stand on the Abu Ghraib photos, and now the kill team photos being released by the press?



I think they're abhorrent actions on the part of individuals, and definitely don't help the stated mission of the troops in the area.  I also think neither have any relevance whatsoever to the original topic.

Inciting people to riot and/or violence are actually crimes in most places.  This is exactly what was done here, and IMHO Terry Jones has the blood of the innocent victims of this (again) predictable violence on his hands.  

Either way, I'm done banging my head against this brick wall. I'd be fascinated to find out exactly what color the sky is in your worlds.  I prefer to live in the real world, where demanding that the bad guys "play nice" (and by your rules) generally doesn't actually work... That's kind of why they're the bad guys...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 2, 2011)

See, here is where I disagree with the 'blood on his hands' bit.

Bush has blood on his hands. He ordered the invasion of Iraq, putting into motion a series of events that led to over 200,000 people dying.
Obama has blood on his hands. He shifted US troops to Afghanistan, resulting in an increase in deaths to US service personnel, as well as Afghan civilians.

Jones however, did not order a single person into harms way. He neither ordered the protesters to protest, nor did he instruct them to assault and kill. He did not order the people killed into harms way.  No, the people killed were there by their choices, not Jones.  The people who did the killing, did so by their own choice. 
They choose to kill. They made the choice to express their outrage in that fashion.
Jones is not responsible for the choices the killers made, any more than I would be responsible if my son knocked up his girlfriend or went on a tri-stage pokemon sausage making rant.

The killers had choices. Jones was at no time in control of them.

To insist that his actions several thousand miles away from where people who he has never interacted with killed others who he never interacted with is his fault and he should be guilty...that's not right.  If I choose to take offense here and go murder a jogger in the park....whose blood is that on?


----------



## billc (Apr 2, 2011)

The press was warned that the photos of Abu Ghraib would cause problems for our soldiers around the world as well as any civillians who might get caught up in the anti-american violence  those pictures would inspire, much like the burning of the korans.  The difference is, the koran burning was so far a one time event while Abu Ghraib was front page news for weeks.  The press new the possibility, much like the guy burning the korans, and they were so determined to attack Bush and undermine the war they published the photos anyway.  there was no cover up in Abu Ghraib.  the military had already begun the investigations into the misconduct.  The photos were put out there without regard to the consequences.  I am not into censoring the press.  They should know when they need to be responsible and how to tell that same story in a responsible way.  Your original post said that the Koran burner was respnsible for the deaths in Afghanistan.  Would you say that the deaths that resulted from the posting of those photos are on the hands of those editors and reporters?
We now have the kill team photos, rumored to be in the thousands.  Are the reporters in Der Spiegal, and the rolling stone and their editors going to be responsible for any deaths generated by the release of those photos?


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 2, 2011)

blaming anyone other than the barbarians that think cutting someone's head off is a legit response to being offended is ignorant


----------



## granfire (Apr 2, 2011)

Well, consider you are visiting a psych ward. You are told that patient X will have homicidal rages if he sees a picture of a sheep.

So what do you do?

You draw a sheep, because it's innocent, right?! And are surprised when patient X is taking apart the joint?

maybe Mr Pastor Oblivious is lucky that no US citizens were involve....I am sure there is an ambulance chaser somewhere...

But wait, no, his ignorant behavior is covered under the premise that those muslims are crazy and he has the _right_ to do what he did, screw the danger he put other people in. It's the patriotic thing to do, right!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 2, 2011)

Wouldn't the world be a really great place if we could just get people to stop doing things that are offensive to others?  
How great would that world be? 
No one, ever offending someone else so that they would have to kill them, attack them, or destroy their property.
Because of course, when you are offended, you have no choice but to do one of those things.
How nice would this no-offense world be?
This world, where everyone is safely surrounded by soft sound absorbing padding, strapped down lest they make a gesture that offends, silenced lest they utter a word that offends, immobilized lest they move in an offensive way, deafened lest they hear something that offends,  breathing only carefully filtered and sterile air lest they smell something that offends and of course blinded lest they see something that offends, kept in utter silence and utter darkness.

What a true paradise this world, this non-offensive world would be.


----------



## granfire (Apr 2, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Wouldn't the world be a really great place if we could just get people to stop doing things that are offensive to others?
> How great would that world be?
> No one, ever offending someone else so that they would have to kill them, attack them, or destroy their property.
> Because of course, when you are offended, you have no choice but to do one of those things.
> ...



BWAHAHAHAHAHA, I think I do detect a hint of sarcasm.

But generally speaking it's called manners. You don't go out of your way to pi$$ people off. And lighting a fuse and then pointing at others to put out the fire...I have ZERO sympathy for those folks.
You play ball in the house, chances are you knock something down, you throw a rock into a lake, there will be ripples. You diss Islam, some equivalent to the Faux news consumer some place out east will burst a gasket. It's almost like a law of physics.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 2, 2011)

More than a hint. 

I wonder though...if the people killing others people over a book being burned by an asshat in Florida, are just as upset over the dozens of other copies of that same book, burned when rockets and mortar rounds slammed into homes in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan, or were shredded by machine gun fire and tracer round on the battle field, or incinerated in flaming jet fuel when 19 lunatics crashed 4 hijacked planes?

I honestly think South Park pegged this stupidity right.


----------



## granfire (Apr 2, 2011)

Of course Southpark got it right.

Does not mean that those who dive readily off the deep end don't take offense to the truth. I mean, the truth hurts.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 3, 2011)

This is my take on things. Where do we draw the line with our individual freedoms? Many men have risked their lives and indeed died, so that we have the freedom of expression, speech and religion. Many on this forum would give up those freedoms for fear of an oppressive, backward group of idiots who believe in a ludicous, hateful ideology. I would like any one of you to blame Planned Parenthood for some Christian wingnut bombing an abortion clinic.

This country is becoming weak because of the ideology of so called progressives. These progressives would be the first to get the chop if Islam was to get its hateful hooks into our society. Think about it, What happens to gays in Iran? What happens to women who so much as complain about their husband's affairs in Afghanistan? How many planned Parenthoods would be allowed to stay open?

I honestly think it's detestable that some of you blame a preacher who burned a book for the deaths of innocents, killed by murderous backward scumbags.


----------



## granfire (Apr 3, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> This is my take on things. Where do we draw the line with our individual freedoms? Many men have risked their lives and indeed died, so that we have the freedom of expression, speech and religion. Many on this forum would give up those freedoms for fear of an oppressive, backward group of idiots who believe in a ludicous, hateful ideology. I would like any one of you to blame Planned Parenthood for some Christian wingnut bombing an abortion clinic.
> 
> This country is becoming weak because of the ideology of so called progressives. These progressives would be the first to get the chop if Islam was to get its hateful hooks into our society. Think about it, What happens to gays in Iran? What happens to women who so much as complain about their husband's affairs in Afghanistan? How many planned Parenthoods would be allowed to stay open?
> 
> I honestly think it's detestable that some of you blame a preacher who burned a book for the deaths of innocents, killed by murderous backward scumbags.




But by your account the wing nut bomb thrower is then responsible for the women dyining during backstreet abortions with rusty coat hangers...(not to mention that PP does other things, too)

But it seems a lot of people secretly agree with him. 

I don't think it is a discussion of whether the killings were just. I am sure we all agree they are not.

The thing is, you do something you know sets somebody off (and don't bring PP into this. because it's totally different. Since providing women with services is not done to poke a finger into somebody's eye. Burning a book has no other purpose) don't hold out for other's to put out the flames.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 3, 2011)

I don't understand your point. What is it that "should be done" (or should have been stopped) here and how should it have been done? Should we outlaw Koran burning? As long as we throw in Bibles, Crucifixes and flags too? Should we craft some "Let the Wookie win" laws where we can't exercise our rights because it may offend someone who could do violence?


----------



## Master Dan (Apr 3, 2011)

This just goes to prove Bill Mahers point that its the extreamist moslims doing the most violent of crimes not others? However as I think this oh really? how many tens of thousands have been killed by military actions or crusades or we take the land and exploit the native or indiginous peoples becasue we are destined by religion to or just corporate greed? 

If we kill and mame tens of thousands using weapons of war for what ever reason its ok or my bad colateral damage? but people of no wealth the only way they can express themselves is one person dying taking as many as they can with them?

Not condoning any of it. Cultures who train thier children to only hate and hope to die while killing others will have to pay ultimatly for that education and the country or peoples which they have made a target will in self defense kill as many of them as they need even to the point of extintion if it comes down to that. 
Anilation is what stoped the Germans and the Japanes but how will we fight a people who no longer fear death or even welcome it? It would seem there was some wisdom in old days when the winning side killed everyone left nothing?
The people trying to fight the building of the Moslim educational center instead of acting like the racist bigots they are if they are truly concerned should be part of its building be on the board break bread with them and have contact on a daily basis if there is something being done or promoting terror they will know in advance and all will act against it together. 

The haves must find a way to fairly share and help the have nots or be faced with two choices kill as many of them as it takes to eliminate thier desire for freedom and fairness or be killed? Two learn to live with killing on both sides as just a cost of doing business? which is what our society seems to have accepted except its the poor and the patriotic who do the dying not the rich or the polititions sending them.

It also does not matter one bit if you agree or disagree the dead bodies of the past cannot be errased nor the bodies of the future cancelled it will just go on until enough or all have died?


----------



## K-man (Apr 3, 2011)

Not to suggest for one moment that either side of the discussion in right or wrong as I can see the merits of both sides (how's that for fence sitting?), but I wonder if there could be another perspective. Whether a copy of the Koran is burnt or not doesn't matter much. It is the excuse the radicals used this time to attack the West. What the minister did was wrong on any analysis. What the protestors did in Afghanistan was wrong in the same way. Next week a suicide bomb will go off somewhere and the Taliban will say, "It was because ABC did this against the Islamic teaching". That is the excuse but not the reason. The reason is that the Taliban and its supporters will attack anyone, anywhere at any time, reason or not. If the opportunity is there they will do it, period. If there is something somewhere of which they disapprove, they will say they did it 'because'. In fact 'because' had nothing to do with it, they would have done it anyway.

The minister is an American but these guys didn't attack American property, they targeted the UN. If I have a beef with "A" is it illogical for me to attack "B", but that seems to be the way these people think. US, UK, Germany, UN etc ... all the same, all the West, all infidel. :asian:


----------



## fangjian (Apr 4, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61WjEd0y6zM&feature=channel_video_title


----------



## granfire (Apr 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I don't understand your point. What is it that "should be done" (or should have been stopped) here and how should it have been done? Should we outlaw Koran burning? As long as we throw in Bibles, Crucifixes and flags too? Should we craft some "Let the Wookie win" laws where we can't exercise our rights because it may offend someone who could do violence?




I picked a fine day to quit coffee...

no, this is not about the laws or freedom of speech.
I don't think anybody denied this man the freedom to express himself _verbally.

_This is - to me_ -  _a matter of instigating a situation that is dangerous. Like if I were to draw myself a black eye and told my husband X down the street hurt me. The resulting actions would be on my head. I mean, you have to have been living under a rock to not know that those action will result in violence.

No, I don't agree with the resulting violence. But that is like saying I don't agree with a tsunami. 

This is not a case of an author writing a soso book that says something about the prophet. (I actually tried to read the book, but never got bast the first few pages, and if the Imam or whatever would have not said a word about it, I doubt the book would have appeared on the radar anywhere, same as the Danish cartoons.)
I don't agree with the violence the above mentioned cartoon sparked. 
Well, Southpark was a bit more direct, but no, I don't agree with the threats made to them either.
But those are incidences of people actually trying to make a point that went beyond taking a leak on the flag. And they brought the danger upon themselves, not on some strangers. 

Yes, I think that whole deal is ridiculous - if it wasn't so tragic.
because both sides are fueled by stereotypes. 
There are those freaks in Murphreesborough and their Islamphobia and they are more or less mirrored by those who blindly strike at any Westener, because they are not Arabic. Same MO.
Same uninformed - or misinformed - masses. 

Personally I don't care much either way if you burn a bible, koran, flag or dip anything into urin or take a leak on it. but I think it's childish and non productive. But when you do something like this and _now_ it will result in reactions past the eek factor or 'how could you' you should be held liable for those actions. because you can, does not mean you should, and my personal freedom ends where another's are infringed upon. But maybe those others were only UN workers, not US people. If the attack would have targeted an army installation, would we have this discussion?


----------



## granfire (Apr 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61WjEd0y6zM&feature=channel_video_title




I only watched half, it seems to be pretty good, but somewhat off the mark in this case.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

Terry Jones intended for people to be murdered as a result of his burning of a Koran.  If he had not intended it to happen, he would not have done it.  If he had believed that his actions would have resulted in no more than a sternly-worded rebuke from Islamic religious scholars, he would not have done it; it would have had no impact.

He intended that people die as a result of his action.  People have, in fact, died as a result of his actions.

He is not criminally, nor probably civilly liable; not in the USA.  I absolutely, without equivocation, defend his right to burn a Koran, a Bible, a Torah, or a US flag.  I don't care if he wipes his *** with a photo of the pope and sets fire to that.

The people who murdered people as a result of their rage over hearing of the Koran being burned are 100% criminally and morally responsible for their actions.  There is no excuse for their behavior, no mitigating factors that lesson their culpability.

However, an inconvenient fact remains.  If Terry Jones had not burned the Koran, those people murdered would now be alive.  They are dead, and he intended that to happen.

He doubtless held no animosity towards the people who died; he did not intend for them specifically to die.  But he did intend that people die in a most horrific manner, because he wanted a result.  People do things because they want what they anticipate the result will be.  The result Terry Jones wanted was that people would be murdered by enraged Muslims in a variety of nations; and that was the result he got.

The question is WHY did he want that?

I think the answer is very clear.  He wanted that so that people like US would have the sort of discussion that is being had right now in this thread.  He wanted people who believe that provoking militant fundamentalist Muslims into murderous rages somehow mitigates their behavior to rise up in their defense; and he wanted people who believe that Muslims in general are given to murderous rages over their religion to rise up to smack them down with the cold hard logic that murderers are responsible for the murders they commit and not those who provoke them, no matter how outrageous the provocation.

He wanted a further division of people in the USA, and he wanted those divisions to become more obvious, deeper, with more hard feelings on each side; more polemic and far less rational ON BOTH SIDES.  He wants America at war with itself. He's getting it.  You're not looking at his chess board; you're a pawn on it.  He's moving you around at his will.

He's a smart, sad, sick man.  And you? You're tools.  How you like that?  Suck on that one for awhile and ask yourself how well you like being poked with a stick and reacting just exactly as some hate-filled moron like Terry Jones predicted you would.  He didn't just desire that people would be murdered in response to his actions; he wanted YOU to do what you just did.  That's some kind of leverage; that's worthy of Sun Tzu.


----------



## fangjian (Apr 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> I only watched half, it seems to be pretty good, but somewhat off the mark in this case.



Hehe.  Sorry. 

Kind of just along the lines of, " The Islamic world just seriously needs to 'grow up' "


----------



## granfire (Apr 4, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Hehe.  Sorry.
> 
> Kind of just along the lines of, " The Islamic world just seriously needs to 'grow up' "


It seriously does.


----------



## granfire (Apr 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Terry Jones intended for people to be murdered as a result of his burning of a Koran.  If he had not intended it to happen, he would not have done it.  If he had believed that his actions would have resulted in no more than a sternly-worded rebuke from Islamic religious scholars, he would not have done it; it would have had no impact.
> 
> He intended that people die as a result of his action.  People have, in fact, died as a result of his actions.
> 
> ...




I don't think he wanted us to have this discussion...more like an 'atta boy' since he did what nobody dared.
Him wanting America at war with itself? maybe.
But I don't even think he thought it out this far. And I don't think he is that smart either. 
An attention whore like they thrive in our current climate, no doubt. I mean, if calling on the lowest instincts of the human nature gets some people big bucks, he certainly can instigate with the best of them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> I don't think he wanted us to have this discussion...more like an 'atta boy' since he did what nobody dared.



Plenty of people have dared.  Some soldiers allegedly flushed Korans down the toilet and urinated on them in Iraq.  There was a video a couple years back of some guys in the US shooting a Koran up with a shotgun.  It didn't have the impact because it was not done by a person claiming Christian affiliation or via a press release.

It was intended to have the effect it did.  Both in terms of response and in terms of widening the divide between those who believe that Muslims are murderous animals and those who believe provoking people who might react this way is a bad thing.



> Him wanting America at war with itself? maybe.



As a professed religious man, he sees this struggle as religious struggle.  One does not provoke holy war without first dividing people up into camps, with no one claiming middle ground or having a moderate viewpoint.



> But I don't even think he thought it out this far. And I don't think he is that smart either.
> An attention whore like they thrive in our current climate, no doubt. I mean, if calling on the lowest instincts of the human nature gets some people big bucks, he certainly can instigate with the best of them.



Don't be a pawn on his chessboard, is all I'm saying.  Whether he's a genius strategist or a yokel with a bible and an itch to become wealthy, those who become sucked into a polemic debate on this issue are tools being pushed around - by fate or by Terry Jones is not as relevant as the fact that you're still a tool.

A puppet master is not a genius - a puppet master is skilled and intends what happens.  Call Terry Jones what you like; he's pulling the strings and some of y'all are dancing.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> No, I don't agree with the resulting violence. But that is like saying I don't agree with a tsunami.



While I understand your view a bit better I don't agree with that. We cant rationalize what ultimately is a human choice into a "natural phenomena". Try using that in a court of law.


----------



## Blade96 (Apr 4, 2011)

They're all tools. The priest who provoked them by burning their book, and the ones who killed people over a BOOK being burned.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 4, 2011)

So what would YOU have Bill? Just don't discuss it?


----------



## granfire (Apr 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> While I understand your view a bit better I don't agree with that. We cant rationalize what ultimately is a human choice into a "natural phenomena". Try using that in a court of law.



Well, in a court of law you can't just go and say '1st ammendment, F those dead people' either.

But mobs are a natural force. Each single member of a mob might be a totally law abiding person, kind and caring. In a mob all bets are off. 
While you can reason with individuals, controlling a mob is much more difficult (if not impossible)


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> So what would YOU have Bill? Just don't discuss it?



Have the meta-discussion instead.  Not the discussion that you're being offered, but rather the actual purpose of the incitement.

We can talk about 3-card Monte without playing 3-card Monte, know what I mean?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well, in a court of law you can't just go and say '1st ammendment, F those dead people' either.
> 
> But mobs are a natural force. Each single member of a mob might be a totally law abiding person, kind and caring. In a mob all bets are off.
> While you can reason with individuals, controlling a mob is much more difficult (if not impossible)



Well in this case, yes he can. Burning that book is protected speech in this country. "F what someone 10K miles away decides to do." Does it make him a tool? Yes. Would I think he deserves some sort of legal/civil penalty? No. And I would decide so if I were on a jury. Veteran that I am.

We arrest mob members all of the time. And convict them. Maybe not all of them, but there is no "mob defense" for your actions. Mob behavior is more an expression of what those people REALLY are underneath the veneer of social pressures IMO.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Have the meta-discussion instead.  Not the discussion that you're being offered, but rather the actual purpose of the incitement.
> 
> We can talk about 3-card Monte without playing 3-card Monte, know what I mean?



Such as?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Such as?



We've already begun.

Imagine if you (not you personally, this is a hypothetical) have a family living on your block who you would prefer not lived there.  You'd like them to move away.  No need to get into the reasons, let's just say you don't want them in your neighborhood.

You could try to be direct; tell them you don't want them there, and you want them to move away.  But they don't have to do what you tell them to do, and you might also attract negative responses from your neighbors who don't really have a problem with those neighbors.  They might in fact have a problem with you instead.  Some neighbors might side with you; some might side against you; but you don't really know which way most of them will go, and some of them might just not have a strong opinion either way; they'd prefer to live and let live.

But let's say that you notice that the neighbors have a child who is well-known to have a terrible temper and not much common sense.  He appears to be someone who can't seem to stay out of trouble with the law.

You start to taunt him.  Maybe you mouth a few really obscene words at him as you drive by, whenever you attract his attention.  Maybe you start a rumor that has him doing something particularly evil.  He gets angry, and he reacts.  He might toss a rock through your window.  He might punch you in the head.  If you started the rumor and made it seem that a different neighbor started it, you might find him taking revenge against that neighbor instead of you.

Now he's arrested.  His family bails him out, he comes home, and you do it again; he reacts again.  He's arrested again.

You hold a meeting with your neighbors and say _"See how that family is?"_  Some of your neighbors might nod their heads and say that yes, that family is pretty bad.  Some might have noticed your provocations and say that you are responsible for pushing the hot-headed kid until he responded.  This causes others to take umbrage with the idea that people are not responsible for their own actions, and now the discussion isn't about you and your provocations, but about the kid who took the illegal actions.  You've driven a wedge into the neighborhood; now you know who is on 'your side', who is on 'their side' and you've demonized the neighbor you don't like.  They're the ones on the defensive; they are the ones who now have to deal with the consequences of the actions of their criminal child.  They're going to incur expenses; lawyers and fines and lawsuit losses and so on.  They may well decide that if they remain in the neighborhood, this will just continue; so they sell the house and move.

It's simpler to do than to describe.  It doesn't take much investment; in time, money, or energy.  It's something anyone can do in their spare time.  No army required, no pile of money or weapons.  All you have to do is notice the weak points of the family you want to get rid of and leverage that to your own advantage.


----------



## granfire (Apr 4, 2011)

So what's your point?

That game is being played on both sides of the issue.
Does not make it any less despicable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

granfire said:


> So what's your point?



My point is that betting on a game you know is rigged isn't the smartest thing a person can do.



> That game is being played on both sides of the issue.
> Does not make it any less despicable.



Absolutely correct.  And we can discuss tactics and responses without becoming pawns in the chess game being played.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 4, 2011)

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

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

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


----------



## fangjian (Apr 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I think that the people who actually killed people bear more scrutinity than some "nobody" who burned a book.
> 
> If some screwball pastor of a "church" that numbers in the Tens of people has the "power" to cause an international incident I think that it speaks more to the instability of a country/people/religious faction who would choose to kill any westerner in the area than it really does to the "responsibility" of the pastor who burned a book.
> 
> And this was not some "small group" of zelots. This was a street riot.



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

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


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


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



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

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



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



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



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



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

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


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 4, 2011)

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

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

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


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


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



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

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

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



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



Obfuscation.  Stay on subject.



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



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## granfire (Apr 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Sure, Jones is an idiot...so what?
> 
> The fact remains that there are entire nations that have the killing of rape victims as "law". That flog 14 yo girs to death and will go on a murderous rampage over a comic or some American idiot who burned a book.
> 
> Saying that there is some form of equivalence between the two is problematic IMO.




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

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


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


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




are you a mind reader or just guessing?


----------



## billc (Apr 4, 2011)

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


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 4, 2011)

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

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

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


----------



## yorkshirelad (Apr 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> are you a mind reader or just guessing?


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


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> are you a mind reader or just guessing?



Neither.  I am using pure cold logic.

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

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

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

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


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

billcihak said:


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



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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## granfire (Apr 4, 2011)

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


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

granfire said:


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



I do not understand your point.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 4, 2011)

so...you're guessing.

ok, just say so.

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



Bill Mattocks said:


> Neither.  I am using pure cold logic.
> 
> *Fact:* Jones has stated that his intent was to prove _"that there is a radical element within Islam."_  He said that - now all I have to do is demonstrate by what means he intended to do that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> so...you're guessing.



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



> ok, just say so.



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



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



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

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


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 5, 2011)

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

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


----------



## Master Dan (Apr 5, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> They are religious fanatics with a different moral compass than our own.
> 
> If Nomad walked down the street in a short skirt and FM pumps, that doesn't justify me driving to Texas and setting Twin Fist on fire. Or vice versa.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## WC_lun (Apr 6, 2011)

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

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

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

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


----------



## Nomad (Apr 6, 2011)

Master Dan said:


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



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


----------



## granfire (Apr 6, 2011)

Nomad said:


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




doo eet


----------



## fangjian (Apr 8, 2011)

[yt]Q2z-YHF_GVk[/yt]


----------



## fangjian (Apr 11, 2011)

Sometimes I am on both sides of the table with this issue. Sometimes I'll be thinking  'you know what that guy who burned the quran *does* share some of the blame. But I started thinking, at what point do you let them control you? Yes burning of their holy book can seem a little extreme, and yes the Islam world did give him a stupid warning etc. But think about it. What if we were warned that 'If Barack Obama declares the USA a muslim nation by the end of his presidency, Al Qaida, Taliban etc. will not launch attacks on civilians anymore." ( or any demand of a religious organization really)

Obama's presidency is over and he didn't declare the USA a 'muslim nation', and sure enough there were tons of attacks on civilians in a few different places.  Does Obama share blame in those people's deaths?


----------



## granfire (Apr 11, 2011)

well, I don't think the attacks would stop regardless, because, shucks, we are dealing with people...and people have always killed each other, from the beginning on.

And second...
I'd love to see anybody try to declare the US as being anything religious. Though most people assume it's Christian, the forefathers decided against a state religion.


----------



## billc (Apr 12, 2011)

Dennis Prager comments on the murders...

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns...rs_in_afghanistan_and_moral_idiocy_in_america

From the article...

Unfortunately, the moral confusion wasn't confined to Afghanistan. Though in no way morally equivalent, we Americans exhibited our own form of moral confusion in regard to the Quran burning.
Joe Klein, political commentator for Time magazine, morally equated Terry Jones and the Afghan murderers: "There should be no confusion about this: Jones's act was murderous as any suicide bomber's."
Anyone with common sense knows that there is no moral equivalence between destroying a book, no matter how holy, and destroying a human life. So how does one explain Klein's statement? 
Klein is a leftist, and his comment embodies two aspects of the contemporary left.
One is the left's hard time identifying and confronting real evil. 
Instead of focusing on Islamism, the left focuses on small evils like alleged pay gaps between men and women working at the same job or on non-evils such as carbon dioxide emissions. Or they engage in moral equivalence: The Muslim murderers are no worse than Terry Jones.
The other characteristic of the left embodied in Klein's statement is what George W. Bush called the "soft bigotry of low expectations." It is clear that Klein has contempt for Muslims. If Christians had slaughtered innocents because of "Piss Christ," it would never have occurred to Klein to write, "There should be no confusion about this: Serrano's act was as murderous as any slaughtering Christians."


----------

