# Various religions denounce Koran burning.  No one showed.



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 7, 2010)

Well, almost no one.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...aith-call-to-oppose-Koran-burning.-Who-didn-t


> *CNN covered interfaith call to oppose Koran burning.*
> 
> *Who didn't?*
> 
> ...



This is why people say _"If Muslims are against terrorism, why don't they denounce it?"_  They do, but Fox News isn't interested in covering that (Nor is ABC, CBS, etc, etc).  It doesn't make hot-heads angrier, so it's not news.  Get it?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 7, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457

We've said that if this church costs any of our troops their lives, we will come across and they will wish they'd never been born. It's not a threat, it's a promise.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 7, 2010)

Tez, be my guest.  

People who burn books are ignorant, enjoy being such, and want to stay that way.  Knowledge is evil.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2010)

Eh..who cares what some hick pastor wants to do with the Koran. Making a big deal out of his idiocy only MAKES a big issue out of it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 7, 2010)

It's idiocy alright. Self righteous bastards have no clue as to what the Koran teaches. Their own bible teaches practically the same thing. How'd they feel if Muslims started burning Bibles?


----------



## Haakon (Sep 7, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> It's idiocy alright. Self righteous bastards have no clue as to what the Koran teaches. Their own bible teaches practically the same thing. How'd they feel if Muslims started burning Bibles?



Seems to be plenty of self righteousness in this thread.

Are you trying to say that all muslims treat the Bible with the same respect they want everyone else to treat the Koran with? Why do you even care what one backwards preacher does anyway?

http://justifythis.blogspot.com/2006/12/australia-muslim-students-urinate-spit.html
http://www.speroforum.com/a/17283/Muslims-burn-Bible-in-Pakistan

There were probably some Bibles burned when they burned down the churches http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/nigeria-muslim-mob-burns-down-8-churches.html

Even the US government burns Bibles http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/19/us-army-burns-bibles-in-afghanistan/

Hey Tez, what are you doing about the muslims killing UK troops in Afganistan,  Iraq and so on, are you making them wish they had never been born too? Afterall they are actually KILLING your troops.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Eh..who cares what some hick pastor wants to do with the Koran. Making a big deal out of his idiocy only MAKES a big issue out of it.



A big issue has already been made about it, with worldwide protests in places as far apart as Jakarta and the Middle East.  The commanding general of the US forces in Afghanistan has addressed it.  I think it's a little late for ignoring it.  If no one addresses it now, silence will be viewed as complicity and approval.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 7, 2010)

"World wide protests" over some no-name pastor burning a bible speaks of something wrong in some parts of the Muslim world IMO. Much like the riots and death threats over the Mohammad cartoon...

I don't recall such problems over "Holy Blood Holy Grail" or Piss Christ.

Why should the US have to answer in any way for this loony pastor?


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 7, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Why should the US have to answer in any way for this loony pastor?



Because it puts American lives at risk.  Not according to me either, according to Gen. Petraeus.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 7, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Because it puts American lives at risk. Not according to me either, according to Gen. Petraeus.


 
But I thought that the vast, vast majority of Muslims were peaceful?  If such an infinitesimal minority are violent, why should our soldiers be at risk?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 8, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> It's idiocy alright. Self righteous bastards have no clue as to what the Koran teaches. Their own bible teaches practically the same thing. *How'd they feel if Muslims started burning Bibles*?



That is TOTALLY different!


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2010)

But would there be any really major widespread protest/violence if they did burn Bibles?

Sometimes it seems like theres a fear based response to any activity related to Islam that you don't see as much in relation to other religions. It remins me of the Star Wars scene:

*Han Solo*: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee. 
*C-3PO*: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid. 
*Han Solo*: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that. 
*Chewbacca*: Grrf. 
*C-3PO*: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win. 

Would there be a different menatlity if riots, death threats and actual extremist attacks and religiously ordered assassinations (a la Rushdie or the Muhammad Cartoon incidents) didn't happen whenever a Koran was burned or a cartoon was drawn?


----------



## David43515 (Sep 8, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> But I thought that the vast, vast majority of Muslims were peaceful? If such an infinitesimal minority are violent, why should our soldiers be at risk?


 
Lets look at it this way. There are usually one or two in your neighborhood whom you don`t get along with. They treat you like you`re a complete a-hole.
The vast majority  of the people who live in your neighborhood are either cool or indifferent, but if you start antagonizing them by busting the windows in thier house, or parking on thier lawn they`re gonna get pissed off and do something about it. The next thing you know the sheer number of people treating you like an a-hole has doubled or tripled.

If you don`t get along with your neighbors, it`s no big deal. But pissing off the whole Muslim world (most of whom come from cultures that have entirely different standards of right and wrong than we do) is probably not the best course of action.  

Or to put it in a martial arts way, attractive young women have every right to walk around in lonely places scantily clad late at night by themselves. And drunken businessmen have every right to ride the subway alone at night with 20$ bills hanging out of thier pockets. They shouldn`t *have* to change thier behavior just because of how someone might react......but that still doesn`t make it a good idea. If the girl gets raped or the drunk gets mugged People may not come out and say "*Well what did you think was going to happen*" but everyone will be thinking it. If Al Queda and the Taliban get a huge surge in recruiting after this or there`s a new series of attacks and riots commited by people who were on the sidelines until now who will we have to blame? We used to have laws about inciting riots and disturbing the peace. I supposed that just because the effects won`t be immediate or happen in the church`s parking lot then the law will be tough to enforce. I for one wish somebody could talk some sense into this pastor.He`s gonna get people killed.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 8, 2010)

Haakon said:


> Seems to be plenty of self righteousness in this thread.
> 
> Are you trying to say that all muslims treat the Bible with the same respect they want everyone else to treat the Koran with? Why do you even care what one backwards preacher does anyway?
> 
> ...


----------



## xJOHNx (Sep 8, 2010)

Haakon said:


> Seems to be plenty of self righteousness in this thread.
> 
> Are you trying to say that all muslims treat the Bible with the same respect they want everyone else to treat the Koran with? Why do you even care what one backwards preacher does anyway?
> 
> ...


You need to see the bigger picture, instead of the fine details.

That bunch that is in Nigeria doesn't practice pure Islam, again they are an offshoot of the bigger Religion that is Islam (much like both Lutherans and Catholics belong to Christianity). 
Nigeria is a poor country, fact.
They have a high illiteracy rate, fact.
They have had civilian wars, tribal feuds and rebels for a long time, fact.

Mix those three up and you have the posse you are refering to in your post. Much like Al Qaeda and the Taliban: the leading few count on the ignorance of their followers to spread havoc to gain more power.
Had it been a region more south, it would probably have been in the name Of Jezus Christ instead of The Prophet (pbwh).



CoryKS said:


> But I thought that the vast, vast majority of Muslims were peaceful?  If such an infinitesimal minority are violent, why should our soldiers be at risk?


Because it's that minority that is shooting their guns at your troops?
Most Muslims are peaceful, just like other religions they have a few bad apples that wreck the whole stock. And unfortunatly most of the world still relies on single quote truths to condemn something.
Especially something as detailed as religion with all it's conotations and factions.


p.s. Jezus is the most quoted prophet in the Quran. By burning the Quran christian ministers are actually denouncing Jezus his words.
Ironical, isn't it?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 8, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> But I thought that the vast, vast majority of Muslims were peaceful? If such an infinitesimal minority are violent, why should our soldiers be at risk?


 

In Afghanistan there's plenty of people who either aren't interested in fighting the Allies or are sitting on the fence, actions like this push those into taking a stand against the Allies. It give more weight to the stuff the Taliban tell the villagers about the Allies, it incites anger and gives more motivation to the fighters. It undermines the Allies' Hearts and Minds campaign, all the good work will go to waste. That's why it's dangerous. The fact it's also ignorant, stupid and the actions of neanderthals is almost beside the point.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 8, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> But I thought that the vast, vast majority of Muslims were peaceful?  If such an infinitesimal minority are violent, why should our soldiers be at risk?



Because that specific minority are the ones who are currently fighting your troops pretty hard, and they want to kill them bad enough that they think nothing of strapping explosives to their body and setting them off, just for the chance of taking some of the troops with them.

It's like ... most people who own and drive a motor bike are law abiding citizens. And only a truly small minority are hells angels. But if you are in a situation involving lots of those in close proximity, then anything that will just annoy or insult motor drivers in general, will probably get those hells angels pissed off to the point where they go out of their way to be even nastier to you than they already were.

A general minority is not mutually exclusive with a local majority. And if you are near that local majority, then it might be a problem for you if your known friends make them very angry.

Does that make sense?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> In Afghanistan there's plenty of people who either aren't interested in fighting the Allies or are sitting on the fence, *actions like this push those into taking a stand against the Allies.* It give more weight to the stuff the Taliban tell the villagers about the Allies, it incites anger and gives more motivation to the fighters. It undermines the Allies' Hearts and Minds campaign, all the good work will go to waste. That's why it's dangerous. The fact it's also ignorant, stupid and the actions of neanderthals is almost beside the point.


 
I normally don't take truck with these kind of threads anymore, but I have to ask a question here.

Is what you're telling me that the burning of a religous book can incite a normally peaceful person _who isn't interested in fighting the Allies _to go out and kill a whole bunch of people?

If that's what you're trying to tell us, then Cory's question is pertinent.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 8, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> p.s. Jezus is the most quoted prophet in the Quran. By burning the Quran christian ministers are actually denouncing Jezus his words.
> Ironical, isn't it?


 
Not necessarily.  That would be to make the assumption that Christians (or these ones in particular) believe that what the Koran quotes that Jesus says is what he actually said.  

If not, to them they aren't denouncing Jesus' word, and in fact are burning a heretical book.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 8, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I normally don't take truck with these kind of threads anymore, but I have to ask a question here.
> 
> Is what you're telling me that the burning of a religous book can incite a normally peaceful person _who isn't interested in fighting the Allies _to go out and kill a whole bunch of people?
> 
> If that's what you're trying to tell us, then Cory's question is pertinent.


 

Afghan politics are complicated, there are people there who don't wish to fight the Allies but can be forced to by various means. It can be threats to family etc or it can be pressure exerted by religious leaders and tribal leaders. The pressure to be seen as a 'good' Muslim and to protect their families can make someone who isn't interested in fighting be made to fight and kill. It would be 'see what these people are doing to the Koran, how you can stand there and do nothing' etc etc. Its been used in various situations before, in wartime Germany for example, as a 'good' German and one who is afraid of the authorities, quite rightly of course, they would denounce neighbours and people they knew were Jewish, communists, trade unionists etc. It's hard to stand against especially if you fear for your family so you go with the 'proof' that the Allies are your enemies and deserve to die because of the way they treat the Koran. You can even justify it to yourself and end up believing it.
The religious gatherings in Afghanistan will be full of fervour against this burning, its easy to whip up the young and foolish and fervant, it would be hard to disgree and harder still not to be called to 'action'. Brave men may well but it will be the end of them for sure. Afghanistan is a tribal society, an individual doesn't do well if he goes against the tribal thoughts and actions.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 8, 2010)

To repost what *Tez* linked to earlier, for a view from the other side of the Atlantic, this is how the on-line BBC is covering the matter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457

Have a read and see how it gels with your own thoughts and experiences. 

For me, as a personal observation, it is yet another log on the fire of my certainty that the human race would be far better off evolving out of it's need to place faith in invisible sky-friends ... such faith all too requently leading to mutually destructive conflicts over whose non-existent fantasy is the 'true' one.

One day, perhaps - if we survive that long as a species.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Afghan politics are complicated, there are people there who don't wish to fight the Allies but can be forced to by various means. It can be threats to family etc or it can be pressure exerted by religious leaders and tribal leaders. The pressure to be seen as a 'good' Muslim and to protect their families can make someone who isn't interested in fighting be made to fight and kill. It would be 'see what these people are doing to the Koran, how you can stand there and do nothing' etc etc. Its been used in various situations before, in wartime Germany for example, as a 'good' German and one who is afraid of the authorities, quite rightly of course, they would denounce neighbours and people they knew were Jewish, communists, trade unionists etc. It's hard to stand against especially if you fear for your family so you go with the 'proof' that the Allies are your enemies and deserve to die because of the way they treat the Koran. You can even justify it to yourself and end up believing it.
> The religious gatherings in Afghanistan will be full of fervour against this burning, its easy to whip up the young and foolish and fervant, it would be hard to disgree and harder still not to be called to 'action'. Brave men may well but it will be the end of them for sure. Afghanistan is a tribal society, an individual doesn't do well if he goes against the tribal thoughts and actions.


 
So the question in this case then becomes, are we fighting against Muslims or the Afgani culture? Or is it a combination of the two that is the problem (for us)?

I still would find it interesting that one would defy one's deeply held religious tenets (as it is continually said that Islam is a religion of peace, and such as al'queda is an extremist minority) due to the burning of a religious text.  They would rather be condemed to a life in hell for defying Allah's commands for something they honestly believe to be wrong then to martyr themselves standing up against the evil Islamists.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 8, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Because that specific minority are the ones who are currently fighting your troops pretty hard, and they want to kill them bad enough that they think nothing of strapping explosives to their body and setting them off, just for the chance of taking some of the troops with them.
> 
> It's like ... most people who own and drive a motor bike are law abiding citizens. And only a truly small minority are hells angels. But if you are in a situation involving lots of those in close proximity, then anything that will just annoy or insult motor drivers in general, will probably get those hells angels pissed off to the point where they go out of their way to be even nastier to you than they already were.
> 
> ...


 
We've been told that the small minority we're fighting are doing it for political purposes, NOT for religion. Some folks have devoted a lot of time on this forum to convince us that Muslims are no more violent than little baby duckies. But at the same time, we are to understand that some podunk church thousands of miles away from them is capable of transforming them into rage-filled murderbots?

I think that the folks here who continually emphasize the peace-lovin' tendencies of Muslims don't really believe that. I think the're just scared ******** of them. And I think that the evidence shows that the extent to which an atheist will white-knight your religion is directly proportionate to the amount of violence you're willing to bring to bear. Maybe there's a lesson there for other religions who feel that they don't get the same degree of consideration. Just a thought.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> But I thought that the vast, vast majority of Muslims were peaceful?  If such an infinitesimal minority are violent, why should our soldiers be at risk?



The vast majority of bees do not sting people.  If you walk up to their hive and start beating it with a stick, you may get a sting or two.

To be more blunt; putting American and coalition lives at risk so that if one of them is killed by a 'retaliation' attack so that one can say _"Ah hah!  I guess Muslims are NOT peaceful after all!"_ is sick, sick, sick.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 8, 2010)

Not quite scared, no. I have known enough over the last 15 years, and every single one was just like you and me. I just think that there are enough angry people already, all round the board, and I don't see ANY point in creating more angry people.

And I can turn the argument around as well. Most Christians are probably of the peace loving kind as well. But if I were to go to a conservative town in the heart of the bible belt, insult the locals and organize a big bible bonfire on a date that is important to the US (like the 4th of July or something), how do you think that will turn out for me? Or perhaps I can organize a flag burning ceremony on the 4th of July. In front of a veterans club. During a soldiers funeral. While shouting insults at them.

I predict it wouldn't end well. And if I happen to pick the wrong town, I will be beaten up or worse. So why would you expect any different from a Muslim? The average Muslim is no more or less violent than the average Christian, and just insulting them for no real purpose is not going to make anything better for anyone.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I think that the folks here who continually emphasize the peace-lovin' tendencies of Muslims don't really believe that. I think the're just scared ******** of them.



Try me.  Bring your lunch.


----------



## MJS (Sep 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, almost no one.
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...aith-call-to-oppose-Koran-burning.-Who-didn-t
> 
> ...


 
This guy is an *******, plain and simple.  IMO, he has no concern for the well being of the troops overseas, as well as the **** storm that he's going to create, when him and the rest of the nutjobs, at his "church" (sounds more like a cult to me) burn the Koran.

We've got enough issues as it is, between the people in those countries wanting us out, the thing in NY, and now this.


----------



## MJS (Sep 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> But would there be any really major widespread protest/violence if they did burn Bibles?
> 
> Sometimes it seems like theres a fear based response to any activity related to Islam that you don't see as much in relation to other religions. It remins me of the Star Wars scene:
> 
> ...


 
You do have a point....I dont see Americans up in arms, when US flags are burned and disrespected, but it appears that there are 2 different mentalities when it comes to these people and the US.

Could it be that the US just chalks it up to people being crazy, but nothing new, when a flag is burned, but when the Koran is disrespected, holy ****, watch out.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

MJS said:


> You do have a point....I dont see Americans up in arms, when US flags are burned and disrespected, but it appears that there are 2 different mentalities when it comes to these people and the US.



_"These people?" _ The majority of Muslims will probably react just like the majority of Americans do to a flag-burning.  Some will shrug, some will ignore it but it will bug them, some will get mad and say something, and a very few crazies will react with violence.

As has been noted before, _"these people"_ are 1.5 billion.  If _"these people"_ decided to react to a Koran-burning with violence, we'd all be pretty much dead or fighting for our lives.  All of us.



> Could it be that the US just chalks it up to people being crazy, but nothing new, when a flag is burned, but when the Koran is disrespected, holy ****, watch out.



Or could it be that the news covers the crazies, and ignores the overwhelming majority of Muslims who won't kill any infidels when some moron burns their holy book, and that makes some people believe that it's applicable to the entire religion?

I can well imagine a typical Muslim person in the Middle East being told by extremists that "America hates your religion and wants to kill you for being a Muslim!"  And extremists in the USA say "Yes, we DO hate you and your religion and we DO want to kill you!"  And the Muslim in question decides, gee, maybe the Islamists are right, Americans do hate us.  And the American screams YOU SEE?  THEY HATE US AND WANT TO KILL US!

This groping for a 'gotcha' is disgusting.  If the typical Muslim doesn't react to being provoked, we'll just do it some more, harder, until he fights back.  Then we'll declare him a terrorist.  Brilliant.

Apparently, what Americans really want is all-out war with all Muslims.  Good luck with that.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

MJS said:


> This guy is an *******, plain and simple.  IMO, he has no concern for the well being of the troops overseas, as well as the **** storm that he's going to create, when him and the rest of the nutjobs, at his "church" (sounds more like a cult to me) burn the Koran.
> 
> We've got enough issues as it is, between the people in those countries wanting us out, the thing in NY, and now this.



Agreed.

To me, it seems like pure hatred and provocation.  If a person does not believe in Islam, then their book should be meaningless to them.  Not holy, but certainly not worth burning; it's a nothing.  What motivates a person to burn a Koran?  Apparently, the desire to 'get back' at Muslims by doing something one knows will cause pain.  Perhaps the desire to provoke a reaction;  maybe even the desire to get that reaction so that one can then claim that yes, all Muslims are terrorists, see?

The law says he has the right to do it.  I expect he will.  I would not use the law to stop him - freedom of speech includes the freedom to voice that speech which is hateful.  I suspect that this will add more fuel to the fire and drive a wedge further between the US and moderate Muslims, which one would think would be the last thing we want.

But I suspect in my heart of hearts that Islamists and radical Christians want the same thing - an all-out religious war on the shores of the USA.  We may end up getting just that.


----------



## MJS (Sep 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> _"These people?" _The majority of Muslims will probably react just like the majority of Americans do to a flag-burning. Some will shrug, some will ignore it but it will bug them, some will get mad and say something, and a very few crazies will react with violence.


 
I thnk its safe to say though, that 'those people' are more inclined to protest then Americans do.  But as you said, some probably aren't phased at all.



> As has been noted before, _"these people"_ are 1.5 billion. If _"these people"_ decided to react to a Koran-burning with violence, we'd all be pretty much dead or fighting for our lives. All of us.


 
So, all the more reason for this nutjob preacher to not be such an *******, and think about the end result.






> Or could it be that the news covers the crazies, and ignores the overwhelming majority of Muslims who won't kill any infidels when some moron burns their holy book, and that makes some people believe that it's applicable to the entire religion?
> 
> I can well imagine a typical Muslim person in the Middle East being told by extremists that "America hates your religion and wants to kill you for being a Muslim!" And extremists in the USA say "Yes, we DO hate you and your religion and we DO want to kill you!" And the Muslim in question decides, gee, maybe the Islamists are right, Americans do hate us. And the American screams YOU SEE? THEY HATE US AND WANT TO KILL US!
> 
> ...


 
Can't argue with that.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> I think that the folks here who continually emphasize the peace-lovin' tendencies of Muslims don't really believe that. I think the're just scared ******** of them. And I think that the evidence shows that the extent to which an atheist will white-knight your religion is directly proportionate to the amount of violence you're willing to bring to bear.



Nonsense.  It isn't the "atheists" who are so pants-pissingly scared that they've turned their entire country upside down to fight the "terrorists".  It isn't liberal groups who are demanding absurd levels of security, torture as a means of war, the degradation of law and civil liberties and all the rest of the nonsense that has been done in the name of "fighting terror."  It isn't civil liberties groups like the ACLU who are so terrified of the superhuman prowess of a broken shell like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that they don't even want him on American soil for his trial for fear of what will happen.  

One thing atheists do know though is that religious tolerance is crucial for their continued well-being.  They would do the same if it was the Amish or some other Christian group being singled out.  If the Muslims become an acceptable target, then so will the atheists.  It's inevitable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> One thing atheists do know though is that religious tolerance is crucial for their continued well-being.  They would do the same if it was the Amish or some other Christian group being singled out.  If the Muslims become an acceptable target, then so will the atheists.  It's inevitable.



I give you +1 for that and QFT.

If I could offer a purely subjective opinion, it has been my observation that Islam today is about where Christianity was a few hundred years ago in terms of dealing with a secular world.  That's a problem, and one that Islam needs to come to terms with very quickly.  In many cases, it's happening, and happening well.  However, it appears that the overall slide towards secularization of Middle Eastern governments has halted - perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently - and one of the causes of that halt has been our (the US and the West in general) interference.  In our desire to 'export democracy', we have stirred up a lot of opposition.

In many ways, the radical Islamists who object to the Westernization of their culture are not unlike (yes, I know some don't want to hear this) the people in the USA who object to immigration by Muslims and Hispanic low-wage workers on the grounds that it is 'destroying our culture'.  Yeah, they have the same fear.  They're more violent in their objection, but their fear is the same.  Loss of culture, loss of identity.  The object to this, and they lash out at the object of their frustration.  This is similar to what is happening here.

Terrorists use fear as a weapon; not just fear of THEM, but fear of what they wish to destroy.  This is not as well understood.  The Islamists want Americans to fear them, yes.  But they also want the US to fear ALL Muslims (and this appears to be working).  And they want ALL Muslims to fear the US.  In this, the Islamists have found ready allies in the radical Christians who plan to burn a Koran in order to demonstrate their hatred and incite a reaction.  Both want nothing more than for fear and hatred between ALL Christians and ALL Muslims to be maximized.

Does this make Christians who advocate burning Korans terrorists?  Well, it makes them willing partners to Islamist terrorists.  So yeah, kind of.

I would ask the pastor of the Dove Outreach Center what his goal is.  What is it he intends to accomplish by burning a Koran?  Just state the goal please; the intended outcome.  He will be pleased if X happens.  What is X?


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> However, it appears that the overall slide towards secularization of Middle Eastern governments has halted - perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently - and one of the causes of that halt has been our (the US and the West in general) interference.  In our desire to 'export democracy', we have stirred up a lot of opposition.



Very true.  This is yet more blowback from the Cold War.  Installing the Shah was a Cold War move, but the man proved so brutal and unpopular, that the people turned to those offering a "holy" solution.  Of course, the new boss is basically the same as the old boss, but people are always willing to believe differently in the beginning.  

Corrupt and brutal but basically secular governments in Egypt and Palestine have also either been replaced by or are threatened by religious parties.  The secular pan-Arabist movement of the 70's is almost completely gone, religion has taken its place.  Then there are countries like Saudi Arabia where the King has grabbed the religion tiger by the tail and in the process exported Wahhabism all over the world.  He can't let go now, and his position is more precarious than most people realize.

You can't exactly blame the people for turning to religious parties.  The secular governments are demonstrably bad and making their lives worse, and the religious parties offer both a change of government and a "return to morality", a call that is popular all over the world, including here.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Very true.  This is yet more blowback from the Cold War.  Installing the Shah was a Cold War move, but the man proved so brutal and unpopular, that the people turned to those offering a "holy" solution.  Of course, the new boss is basically the same as the old boss, but people are always willing to believe differently in the beginning.
> 
> Corrupt and brutal but basically secular governments in Egypt and Palestine have also either been replaced by or are threatened by religious parties.  The secular pan-Arabist movement of the 70's is almost completely gone, religion has taken its place.  Then there are countries like Saudi Arabia where the King has grabbed the religion tiger by the tail and in the process exported Wahhabism all over the world.  He can't let go now, and his position is more precarious than most people realize.
> 
> You can't exactly blame the people for turning to religious parties.  The secular governments are demonstrably bad and making their lives worse, and the religious parties offer both a change of government and a "return to morality", a call that is popular all over the world, including here.



More examples - the former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union (Chechnya and the 'stans), China (Uygur and Turkestans), and Somalia.

We're facing a growing worldwide Islamist threat.  While some would say that proves their point, the problem is that continuing conflate the average Muslim with Islamists makes the situation worse, not better.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 8, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> *So the question in this case then becomes*, *are we fighting against Muslims or the Afgani culture? Or is it a combination of the two that is the problem* (for us)?
> 
> I still would find it interesting that one would defy one's deeply held religious tenets (as it is continually said that Islam is a religion of peace, and such as al'queda is an extremist minority) due to the burning of a religious text. They would rather be condemed to a life in hell for defying Allah's commands for something they honestly believe to be wrong then to martyr themselves standing up against the evil Islamists.


 
Thats very much hit the nail on the head. I hate to use the word primitive but basically that's what much of Afghans society is hence the way women are treated and the way they look at the world. It's an intensely tribal society to whom we have given ourselves up as the common enemy which is uniting them for the time being. Their belief in Islam is also a product of who and what they are. An American Muslim will be very much an American, educated, into things most American are, his politics will be American, his very way of thinking American so his reading of the Koran and his discussions of it will take the peaceful, more thoughtful track, the educated track if you like. The Afghan tribesman will take the track he is given by his Iman. Having no education other than that given by Imans coloured by the tribal traditions older then Islam I doubt they see themselves as disobeying Allah. Standing up and disagreeing with the majority gets you killed in Afhganistan or at best exiled.

Islam has as many sects nearly as Christianity, it's not one big happy family, to bracket all Muslims the same would be like lumping all the various denominations and sects of the Christians together and no one does that.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 8, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Very true. This is yet more blowback from the Cold War. Installing the Shah was a Cold War move, but the man proved so brutal and unpopular, that the people turned to those offering a "holy" solution. Of course, the new boss is basically the same as the old boss, but people are always willing to believe differently in the beginning.
> 
> Corrupt and brutal but basically secular governments in Egypt and Palestine have also either been replaced by or are threatened by religious parties. The secular pan-Arabist movement of the 70's is almost completely gone, religion has taken its place. Then there are countries like Saudi Arabia where the King has grabbed the religion tiger by the tail and in the process exported Wahhabism all over the world. He can't let go now, and his position is more precarious than most people realize.
> 
> You can't exactly blame the people for turning to religious parties. The secular governments are demonstrably bad and making their lives worse, and the religious parties offer both a change of government and a "return to morality", a call that is popular all over the world, including here.


 
And who made the Saudi 'Royal Family' and who divided up the Middle East into sections putting people on thrones that didn't exist, making borders where there were none? The Allies did after the First World War, we reap what we sow.


----------



## crushing (Sep 8, 2010)

Related to the article in the OP about the networks not showing-

One of the local news channels did a kind of matter of fact report on the "International Burn a Koran Day" event being put on by a church in Florida.  They also included a clip of Gen. Petraeus' comment about the possiblity that it might harm US Troops.  Like I said, it was all done matter of factly, like it wasn't THAT big of a deal and zero commentary.

That segment was immediately followed by a "smoking puppy" story that included comments of outrage and disgust from across the country that the owner would subject this poor puppy to cigarettes.  They really got into this segment.

I swear it was like Terry Gilliam produced that news to make a societal point about how effed up our priorities have become.


----------



## xJOHNx (Sep 8, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not necessarily.  That would be to make the assumption that Christians (or these ones in particular) believe that what the Koran quotes that Jesus says is what he actually said.
> 
> If not, to them they aren't denouncing Jesus' word, and in fact are burning a heretical book.



Nope, has been identified by multiple specialists in the matter as the words Jezus said (and also were taken over from the manuscripts of his apostle's, same as certain parts of the bible can be traced back to the Torah).



> Is what you're telling me that the burning of a religous book can incite a normally peaceful person who isn't interested in fighting the Allies to go out and kill a whole bunch of people?



As I posted in another thread. You only need 1 person to incite the spark and the fire (in this case a mob) will spread. When in a mob or when commanded by a superior, people WILL do extreme acts without questioning them (ref: milgram experiment).

Also: the people who want to command a mob (the leaders) are not going to say: "Them lot is burning our Holy Book! Blimey, we have to do a march to Kabul! That will show 'em!!"*
No, just like in any war/struggle, the guys in charge will say something along the lines of: "The white bastard with his false Messiah wants us to convert! That's why they burn our book! We need to smash them down because their white Devil-God wants us to kiss a goat's behind!"*
(that last piece I added because it shows how easy it is to subvert a mob into a voilent killing force. As has been shown in the past...).

Not to forget that Afghanistan is actually a land that is still heavily influenced by the Tribal feelings/rules. This is a very complex matter that we hardly can grasp as Westerners.
EVERY war is about power. Money, politics, land, it all comes down to pure power. 
And the current situation just redefined the chessboard of politics overthere! The tribal leaders that followed the allies and those that went along with a minor ******* organisation like the Taliban.

We expect them to be like the Western world... but truth is, that region is FAR FAR away from anything remote to a Western World (except drugs, hookers and weapons ofcourse).
But than again.. When I see things like this:





I often wonder if we are really that advanced as we claim to be..
(except for the part that such high quality stickers are pretty advanced, the message is still quite macho, naive and neaderthalistic).

* in Urdu or Farsi ofcourse..

edit: I see alot of people just said the same thing as me, but more elaborated (as I'm not a native speaker). Thanks Tez


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2010)

Thats a photoshop job if I ever saw one.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Thats a photoshop job if I ever saw one.



Nope.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2010)

Well then thats just crazy.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 8, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Nope.


 
Wow. :barf:


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 8, 2010)

Some question for some of you...

1) Is he an American?
2) Does he not have the right to do as he pleases?
3) Nobody and their momma's really cares, but the press has done a great job on letting people know about it
4)He has his views nomatter how screwed up they are
5) What is and will happen has already been put into place, so all we can do is sit back and see how far this will go
6) They started this mess and he is just trying to make his point one way or another.

I do not agree with it or do I condon such an act, but people have the right to be a stupid and dumb as they see fit here in America. It is called the American way of life, we never have to agree but we do have to listen for the most part. The Koran will never get burned by him because the American people will stand up and stop it, but wait is that not was suppose to happen in the 60's & 70's and the Vietnam war, we as a group of American wanted to burn the flag to protest the war and they all said it will never happen but it did and we recovered and went on to become a mighty country for it. 

Bottom line he is a fool with no way of going any where and this is what he is doing to be remembered by all those folks that give him a minute of there time.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2010)

Would anybody have known or really cared (let alone become national news) what some insignificant hick pastor in the US did to a Koran if the media didn't MAKE a story out of it?

Why did THIS nut get attention? I'm pretty sure there have been numerous other nuts who have done similar things.

Plus the whole "Islam is a peaceful religion" BUT "don't burn the Koran because people are gonna die" thing seems contradictory. While I cant buy the idea that billions of people subscribed to it, one cant deny that the Salomn Rushdie and Muhammad Cartoon incidents illustrate a mindset different from the oddball X-tian Fundie who bombs an abortion clinic. There were street riots and religiously ordered assassinations.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Wow. :barf:



I've seen a couple of Confederate flags on pickup trucks since I moved to the South (Florida) about a year ago.  Nothing that matches the "magnificence" of this guy, but the attitudes are definitely there.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> I do not agree with it or do I condon such an act, but people have the right to be a stupid and dumb as they see fit here in America.



I haven't seen anyone here, or in the media at large, suggest otherwise.  We all know that.  That shouldn't shield the stupid and dumb from criticism for their actions.  Nor should it keep people from asking them not to.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Plus the whole "Islam is a peaceful religion" BUT "don't burn the Koran because people are gonna die" thing seems contradictory.



That point has been addressed _multiple _times in this thread.  You could respond to those answers instead of pretending the question hasn't already been addressed.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 8, 2010)

The guy is a pal of Phelps...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Plus the whole "Islam is a peaceful religion" BUT "don't burn the Koran because people are gonna die" thing seems contradictory.



To you, perhaps.  Bees generally don't sting.  Smacking a hive with a stick tends to produce a less salutary effect. 



> While I cant buy the idea that billions of people subscribed to it, one cant deny that the Salomn Rushdie and Muhammad Cartoon incidents illustrate a mindset different from the oddball X-tian Fundie who bombs an abortion clinic. There were street riots and religiously ordered assassinations.



Yes, there were.

One might consider that the average Muslim-in-the-street in many Middle Eastern countries is essentially uneducated (as Empty Hands has described quite well), itinerant, and poor.  His or her country is backwards, desolate, isolated, and lacking infrastructure as well as economic opportunity.  He or she does not have regular access to news sources other than rumor, hearsay, and the information spread by religious leaders.

In other words, this is not unlike Europe of hundreds of years ago.  When they go to school, it is frequently to learn only the Koran, which they memorized by rote, word by word, until they can recite the entire thing on demand.  They are given explanations for what the words mean - and these explanations are largely dependent upon what the prevailing version of Islam happens to be.

For the most part, Islam concerned itself with Islam.  The average guy had a menial job, an arranged marriage, kids, and a place to live.  His main concerns were feeding his belly and that of his family, and keeping God's law as he understood it; whether that was hair length, beard length, keeping his head covered, keeping his wife covered up, etc.  His concern was not the USA.  He may be what many of us would consider an ignorant savage, but he certainly wasn't a threat to us.  Just as peaceful as the next guy, no particular interest in nor hatred of 'the West' or the USA.  Why would they?  In basic terms, the USA doesn't intrude into their world, for most part.  You might have a McDonalds in the city, but most of the Islamic world doesn't live in cities; they live in what we would call rural slums, devoid of even basic things like paved roads, running water, indoor plumbing, and electricity.  You think these people lay awake at night thinking about blowing themselves up to kill some infidels?  But they are prime fodder to be recruited.  This is not their fault - and there's not much we can do about it.  It is what it is.  It's like a natural resource for terrorists.

This is a base that the religious right in the USA does not have access to.  No matter how poor some families and communities are in the USA, their poverty doesn't hold a candle to that of the Middle East.  Even the poor go to school, have access to information, and most importantly, do not grow up with one book and one religious philosophy as their only yardstick by which to measure everything.  As much as some fundamentalist Christians consider it their life, it's nothing compared to people who memorized their holy book when they were just kids and could recite it backwards and forwards before they were old enough to shave.

Now, you take that base and you give them access to radicals, who preach hatred towards the USA.  They tell these people that the USA is their enemy and intends to destroy their culture, defile their women, insult their religion, trample their sacred symbols.  And then, for those who don't believe the radicals, they give them just enough access to outside media to show them a fundamentalist Christian burning a Koran.  There it is, the proof, right in front of their eyes.

Think a few radicals might be recruited out of that miasma?  I do.

Christians don't incite the same reaction because here in the West, we don't have the same isolated, ignorant base of citizens from which to draw.  One can listen to the bible-thumping moron on TV or switch the channel and watch Maury Povich or Judge Judy.

Knowing that many Muslims who are not economically advantaged and not located in the West are tools and pawns to be used by our actual enemies, one would be wise (I would have thought) to not give the terrorists additional ammunition to use against us.  We are reacting just exactly as they would like us to react.  As I mentioned before, that's called being a tool.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 8, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> To you, perhaps.  Bees generally don't sting.  Smacking a hive with a stick tends to produce a less salutary effect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You keep beating that drum, and never, once, admitting that Christians are, seemingly, required to put up with things that you, and others demand we insulate Muslims from, for our own safety.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

Big Don said:


> You keep beating that drum, and never, once, admitting that Christians are, seemingly, required to put up with things that you, and others demand we insulate Muslims from, for our own safety.



Thanks, Don. I should have realized this earlier, but you've done a fine job of illustrating that we're not going to have a discussion.  Have a good evening.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 8, 2010)

That is a positive thing really, Don.  

Christianity is a more mature faith and one of the few good things about it is that the churches, in Europe at least, have gone through their vandalistic, trouble-making, 'teenage years' and can now be exposed to piquant criticism without the urge to burn everyone at the stake.

The societies it is within (except, possibly, America) would not stand for it if it did start to behave like the radical Muslim sects are.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That is a positive thing really, Don.
> 
> Christianity is a more mature faith and one of the few good things about it is that the churches, in Europe at least, have gone through their vandalistic, trouble-making, 'teenage years' and can now be exposed to piquant criticism without the urge to burn everyone at the stake.
> 
> The societies it is within (except, possibly, America) would not stand for it if it did start to behave like the radical Muslim sects are.



That's quite right.  What many of us who were raised in modern times do not seem to grasp is that we have a secular society; we were raised in it, we understand it.  We do NOT understand what a religious society is; it's alien to us.  While what Islam is now is roughly analogous to what Christianity was 500 years (or more) ago, we don't have a personal grasp of what it was like to live in a society that was not just composed of religious people, but was itself religious at its core.

One cannot blame Muslims for their societies or their religion as they are; they can no more help it than we could have during the Middle Ages.  But we must understand what makes their society different from ours, and the pressures that move theirs as opposed to ours.  One cannot approach a person from a culture that barters and doesn't have television and demand that he appreciate fine art and not care about whether or not his God is insulted.  It won't happen; it's not in his world.

Moderate and modern Muslims who have become Westernized and adopted our values and our culture have even more to worry about.  They are quite often considered the enemy by Islamists; and of course they would be, since they represent something that Islamists cannot tolerate; a Muslim who can thrive inside of a Western Democratic Republic that supports freedom of religion.  If this can happen, then all that Islamists fear is a lie (and of course, it is a lie).

But at the same time, the moderate Muslim who lives in a Western nation and has adapted himself to a secular society is ALSO now being hated by that society that he has fitted himself to.  He is not going to be accepted by the society he left behind - nor does he want to.  But he is also not going to be accepted by the society he voluntarily made himself a part of.  It is for these people I feel the most sympathy.

I took this photo last year at a VERY trendy mall here in the area.  

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/3066450039/

Tell me, do you think these ladies or their families are likely to blow up the society they have become a part of?


----------



## Mark Jordan (Sep 8, 2010)

[FONT=&quot]I have no interest in attacking Islam or Muslims but as we  accommodate the "Islamic minority" who, by the way, are already enjoying full equal rights, we neglect to see the plight of the Christian minorities in the Muslim world.  These Christian minorities are in most cases the indigenous inhabitants of the land and not immigrants.  Here in America, we are free to express our beliefs and opinions and we should stop bending our backs to Muslim or anyone.

[/FONT]


----------



## Marginal (Sep 8, 2010)

Mark Jordan said:


> [FONT=&quot]I have no interest in attacking Islam or Muslims but as we  accommodate the "Islamic minority" who, by the way, are already enjoying full equal rights, we neglect to see the plight of the Christian minorities in the Muslim world.  These Christian minorities are in most cases the indigenous inhabitants of the land and not immigrants.  Here in America, we are free to express our beliefs and opinions and we should stop bending our backs to Muslim or anyone.
> 
> [/FONT]



Will Christians in the US burning books somehow aid the plight of these suffering Christians?

No? It'd probably just make their lives harder? 

Well, then, we'd better burn them books!


----------



## Big Don (Sep 8, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That is a positive thing really, Don.
> 
> Christianity is a more mature faith and one of the few good things about it is that the churches, in Europe at least, have gone through their vandalistic, trouble-making, 'teenage years' and can now be exposed to piquant criticism without the urge to burn everyone at the stake.
> 
> The societies it is within (except, possibly, America) would not stand for it if it did start to behave like the radical Muslim sects are.


Then wouldn't Muslims, of all sects, having to suck it up and take piquant criticism, also be a positive thing? Kindly explain why when it is good for Christians to take criticism, and, indeed, derision, it is NOT OK for Muslims to be subject to the same?


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 8, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Kindly explain why when it is good for Christians to take criticism, and, indeed, derision, it is NOT OK for Muslims to be subject to the same?



Who said Islam and Muslims shouldn't be criticized?  Intentional blasphemy is not criticism.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 8, 2010)

Mark Jordan said:


> [FONT=&quot]I have no interest in attacking Islam or Muslims but as we  accommodate the "Islamic minority" who, by the way, are already enjoying full equal rights, we neglect to see the plight of the Christian minorities in the Muslim world.  These Christian minorities are in most cases the indigenous inhabitants of the land and not immigrants.  Here in America, we are free to express our beliefs and opinions and we should stop bending our backs to Muslim or anyone.
> 
> [/FONT]



Christians are treated quite badly in many Muslim countries.

However, we do not observe civil liberties in this country on the basis on who does what to whom in other countries.  Is that what you're suggesting?  One who comes from a backwards nation which oppresses Christians ought not have their own religion respected here?

Try to remember that 'here in America' the 'we' you speak of includes the Muslims who were born here and have lived here for generations, blocks from what is now known as Ground Zero.  They're as American as you - maybe more.  But because of their faith, to you they are 'they' and not 'us'.  They're us.  You just don't care for that information.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 8, 2010)

I think that they should be mature enough to deal with criticism and derision of their faith, Don.  But 'they', speaking of the faith in broad generic terms, are not yet at that stage.  Maybe they will get there, maybe they wont.  

Sad to say, what ever we think about it, I think there is a major conflagration coming and an awful lot of decent people are going to die for no good reason along with the hot-heads and downright evil twisters of doctrine.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 8, 2010)

By the way, just for interests sake, I should mention that, until recently, one of my work colleagues was one of "them".  

He was a nice enough chap - a bit reserved and uneasy about how to fit in (especially when I was shooting my mouth off about immigration et al) but doing his best under the cirumstances.

Sadly, his cultural demands steered his course for him as his parents fitted him up with an arranged marriage and he had to go home.  He wasn't happy about that at all but felt it was his obligation to do so as a dutiful son.

Hardly a 'demon' bent on the destruction of Western society.


----------



## David43515 (Sep 8, 2010)

Big Don said:


> You keep beating that drum, and never, once, admitting that Christians are, seemingly, required to put up with things that you, and others demand we insulate Muslims from, for our own safety.


 
That`s just it Don, we _*are *_required by commandment to "Turn the other cheek" and to "go the extra mile", to "Hate the sin but love the sinner" and to tolerate things we don`t agree with by "being in the world but not of the world". And even if we have no particular religous belief ourselves, we`ve grown up in a culture that was shaped by these ideals.

But we`re not dealing with people who were raised in the same culture as us. Thier culture was shaped by a religion that doesn`t tell you to forgive a sinner "7 times 70 times". Islam is an Abrahamic religion, but they didn`t go through the same radical changes that Christianity did.  For example in the New Testement you have the woman guilty of adultary. The story ends with her not being stoned to death and being told to "Go and sin no more" (to return home and repent and make changes in her life.) In the Muslim world on the other hand there is a woman in Iran right now awaiting exicution by stoning for adultary. And as a side note there are reports she was given 99 lashes with a whip because a photo appeared in a British newspaper. They are told that revenge and punishment _*are*_ thier religious duty in order to keep the peace and to provide a good example for others who might be tempted to commit the same sin.

That`s why even though we can`t fathom it, the kill thier daughters in "honor killings". They send thier sons to be suicide bombers because they think some some Isreali cheated thier Great Grandfather in a land deal 100 years ago. (How can your hate for your neighbor be stronger than your love for your kids?) They condem writers and cartoonists to death because of some ink on a peice of paper. And they riot on 3 continents over cartoon of Mohamed. And they do it all because in thier eyes that what it takes to be a good and decent person. We have to hold ourselve to a higher standard because our standards are completely different. 

It takes time to build on the standards we have in common. And it doesn`t help to have morons like this so-called pastor in Florida throwing gasoline on the fire of our differences.


----------



## Carol (Sep 8, 2010)

I suspect this has little to do with the Islam at all, and is more about some guy capitalizing on recent controversy for the sake of being an attention hound.

Some guy with either (a) a fading congregation or (b) a desire to be run some sort of uberchurch (or maybe both?) is trying really really hard to be relevant.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2010)

What "civil liberties" are we discussing in THIS thread?

This kooks right to burn a Koran? he does have that right.

This is the other side of the Mosque debate. While I don't agree with the timing and placement of the Mosque. I defend the RIGHT of the guy to build it. While this nut is...well a nut...what are you suggesting should be done here??


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 8, 2010)

Sorry. I wont "turn the cheek" to a deadly threat. To a "slap" maybe..but to a threat of death? 

I guess Im not that good of an X-tian.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 8, 2010)

2.2 Billion Christians, 1.8 Billion Muslims....

Who's "They" again? I want full names, addresses and photo ID.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 9, 2010)

terryl965 said:


> Some question for some of you...
> 
> 1) Is he an American?
> 2) Does he not have the right to do as he pleases?
> ...



NO goddamnit NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
You're doing it too!

'They' didn't start this mess. A group of ****tards started this mess, using Islam simply as a vehicle for their hatred. I've said it before and I will say it again: Islam is not any more to blame for 9/11 than Christianity for the crusades.

What he does would be like someone saying 'I learned everything I need to know about the US when I saw the Rodney King video'. He is an idiot. Fair enough. But by saying things like your 6th point, you are validating him and implying that Islam really IS to blame for this when it is not true.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 9, 2010)

What I think feeds into this sentiment is the fact that there are organized and somewhat large groups of people who use Islam for violence. AlQueda, the Taliban etc. are not the lone McVeigh's. And it sure seems like a lot of "terror" from the 70's till today has had an Islamic flavor to it.

Add in the "Cartoon riots" and Rushdie style assassination orders by somewhat large Muslim orgs and it becomes easier to buy into the belief that this is a fundamental aspect of their religon. And while I am sure that many Imams make public rejections of these actions it seems like "we" never really see a widespread renouncement of the violence by greater Islam. This of course may just be because we don't see it in our media...where the less tolerant and/or educated in our society get the bulk of their information on topics they are not familiar with. When all you see is one "Munich"..Hijacking..bombing..9/11 after another over your life it gets easier to generalize.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 9, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> To you, perhaps. Bees generally don't sting. Smacking a hive with a stick tends to produce a less salutary effect.


 
Isn't this like saying "Christianity is a peaceful religion. But don't allow abortions because people will die." ?

Do we shut down abortion clinics because of the odd fundienut?

Do we "shut down" this nutty preacher and his Koran bonfire?

I don't think many people here are saying "right on preacher!!!" I'm just saying what do you suggest?


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 9, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That is a positive thing really, Don.
> 
> Christianity is a more mature faith and one of the few good things about it is that the churches, in Europe at least, have gone through their vandalistic, trouble-making, 'teenage years' and can now be exposed to piquant criticism without the urge to burn everyone at the stake.
> 
> The societies it is within (except, possibly, America) would not stand for it if it did start to behave like the radical Muslim sects are.


 
I dunno Suk..that smacks of the "Wookie effect". Do we change our ways out of fear that they "rip off arms when they loose?" Or do we do it because it's the right thing?

If we think that we are doing the right thing by allowing "crazy preacher" to burn some paper (as symbolic as that paper is) because its Constitutionaly protected...do we cave in and stop him because of the "Wookie effect"?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Isn't this like saying "Christianity is a peaceful religion. But don't allow abortions because people will die." ?
> 
> Do we shut down abortion clinics because of the odd fundienut?
> 
> ...


 
Send him out to Afghanistan as a missionary. I'll chip in for his fare.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 9, 2010)

Come on Tez..don't make me call Godwin on you. The guy is far from a Hitler character in this play. And you didn't answer the question...at least directly.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Come on Tez..don't make me call Godwin on you. The guy is far from a Hitler character in this play. And you didn't answer the question...at least directly.


 

Are you so sure he's not like that? My grandparent's neighbour, they'd known each other for 50 years, they'd shared all sorts of things, he denounced them to the Nazis.

Damn right I'd send him to Afghanistan as a missionary, I was serious about that. He wants to make a protest he should make it to the people concerned, not in the safety of his back garden. He should have the courage of his convictions.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 9, 2010)

So our government should impress this man into service against his will? Thats your solution?

The point isnt if this guy is a Nazi..the outright Nazi's in the USA have Constitutional protections. Why not this guy?


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 9, 2010)

"You are a savege child race, murdering each other in quarrels over tribal god images"

Unfortunately Q was right, and there is no end in sight either.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> So our government should impress this man into service against his will? Thats your solution?
> 
> The point isnt if this guy is a Nazi..the outright Nazi's in the USA have Constitutional protections. Why not this guy?


 

He won't need to be pressed, he would jump at the chance to go, give him his fare, a pile of Bibles and some money to rent a building for a church, he'll go willingly. If not he's a hypocrite.

I never said he was a Nazi as such, I said they started by burning books and ended by burning my grandparents among others, I was giving you a personal example of what things can lead to. Fanaticism is a canker thats eats and eats it's way through societies if we aren't vigilant. 

Stand up and demonstrate when he tries to burn these books, don't shrug your shouldrs and say hey what can we do, every little thing helps. After all it might be your freedoms or rights his like could go for next.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 9, 2010)

I'd have no problem with counter protests. But I personally don't have the inclination nor desire to spend my time picketing every crackpot nut that wants to do something like this.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 9, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> He won't need to be pressed, he would jump at the chance to go, give him his fare, a pile of Bibles and some money to rent a building for a church, he'll go willingly. If not he's a hypocrite.


Sure he will, just like Arafat and Bin Laden strapped on a couple of explosive vests... 





> I never said he was a Nazi as such, I said they started by burning books and ended by burning my grandparents among others, I was giving you a personal example of what things can lead to.Fanaticism is a canker thats eats and eats it's way through societies if we aren't vigilant.


 The answer, then, is protecting the fanatics from hearing and or seeing things that might make them flip? 





> Stand up and demonstrate when he tries to burn these books, don't shrug your shouldrs and say hey what can we do, every little thing helps. After all it might be your freedoms or rights his like could go for next.


Uh, as stated, just as the artist who made "Piss Christ" had the right to do so, so, does this jack *** have the right to his little bonfire... 
The ones who want to force his silence, those are the ones who want to erode rights. *There is no right not to be offended.* (But, the sissies in governments the world over are working hard at it.) Oh, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference were pushing a UN Resolution...


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 9, 2010)

Ah but you have a comfortable life in America, I think that most of these arguments are academic for you, you haven't the experience most countries have in fascism, communism, dictators, wars, being bombed, (70th anniversdary of the Blitz this week), resistance etc. Easy for you to pass judgement on the rest of us when it's a academic for you.

Oh well would love to stay and chat but car and bags packed for time away in sunny Cornwall. Don't do all the controversial stuff while I'm away!


----------



## Carol (Sep 9, 2010)

Have a good trip to Cornwall!  :asian:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Isn't this like saying "Christianity is a peaceful religion. But don't allow abortions because people will die." ?
> 
> Do we shut down abortion clinics because of the odd fundienut?
> 
> ...



I don't suggest 'shutting down' this preacher or his book-burning.  I believe I said earlier that he has the right to do it, and I always back civil rights, even when the person or their exercise of their rights personally offends me.

I'm stating that this fellow and those who support him are effectively giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Their choice, but they're morons for so doing.

As to the people on this thread supporting this preacher, no, I don't see that either. I do see a lot of folks declaiming _'bending over backwards'_ for Muslims as a _'bad thing'_.  I presume these folks have a different understanding of _'bending over backwards'_ than I do.  I didn't think that stabbing Muslim taxi drivers, burning Mosques, running Muslims off the road and side-swiping them with cars, firing shotguns near their Mosques and shouting anti-Muslim names, burning their holy books, or protesting Mosques near Ground Zero was _'bending over backwards for them'_.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 9, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Ah but you have a comfortable life in America, I think that most of these arguments are academic for you, you haven't the experience most countries have in fascism, communism, dictators, wars, being bombed, (70th anniversdary of the Blitz this week), resistance etc. Easy for you to pass judgement on the rest of us when it's a academic for you.
> 
> Oh well would love to stay and chat but car and bags packed for time away in sunny Cornwall. Don't do all the controversial stuff while I'm away!



Pass judgement on YOU??

What?

We are discussing an American doing something in America. When did this become about you? What judgement was passed. I was talking about the Constitutional right of this American to do what he's doing...as distasteful as it is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 9, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I think that they should be mature enough to deal with criticism and derision of their faith, Don.  But 'they', speaking of the faith in broad generic terms, are not yet at that stage.  Maybe they will get there, maybe they wont.



I absolutely agree.  A secular nation allows blasphemous speech, and a member of a secular society must accept that it exists.  That even includes drawing caricatures of revered figures, casting aspersions on a given religion, even burning sacred texts.  This is a necessary component of freedom.  In the West, Christians, Jews, and others have learned to accept this and to ignore it.

There are many Muslims living in the West who have also learned to accept this.  We have a huge Islamic population here in the Detroit area; there are no riots over this proposed book-burning, although many people clearly are not happy about it.

The damage, and the danger, are not really inside our own borders (although I have no doubt that there are some extremists living here too).  The danger is in countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq, where the notion of separating speech from religion is not considered acceptable.

It is these people, which are in direct contact with our own troops, who are likely to be stirred to a frenzy by militants who will use images of this book-burning to whip up anger.

It is very sad that the pastor in question doesn't see that or does not care about putting our own troops' lives in danger.  It is nearly as sad that people (even in this thread) see this as some sort of gleeful _'proof'_ that Muslims are all this way and thus not to be allowed in our societies. 



> Sad to say, what ever we think about it, I think there is a major conflagration coming and an awful lot of decent people are going to die for no good reason along with the hot-heads and downright evil twisters of doctrine.



I think both the terrorist Islamist and the ultra-right wing Christian want this fight very much.  They will do everything they can to stir the common Muslim in lands where blasphemous speech is still seen as unacceptable to rise up and commit violence so that we are all engulfed in it.

The Islamists want war with the West, and the ultra-right Christians want all Muslims destroyed.  But this is a fight that cannot happen without the active collusion of both sides.  It's like a gang of school kids who surround two unlucky kids and push them at each other until one finally punches the other so that the crowd can see a fight.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 9, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> I dunno Suk..that smacks of the "Wookie effect". Do we change our ways out of fear that they "rip off arms when they loose?" Or do we do it because it's the right thing?


 
I agree entirely with the background sentiment to that i.e. a society that has itself constitutionally organised to allow individual freedom (without that freedom causing harm to others) should not allow itself to be coerced by fear into restricting those freedoms.



Archangel M said:


> If we think that we are doing the right thing by allowing "crazy preacher" to burn some paper (as symbolic as that paper is) because its Constitutionaly protected...do we cave in and stop him because of the "Wookie effect"?


 
I stand with you on this principle, as does Bill and others here too I am sure, when I concurr that trying to stop this unfortunate man from committing the act of book burning would be as wrong as trying to stop other fundamentalist christians from burning copies of Harry Potter (small "C" as I don't think they are representative of the church at large).

The caveat for me in this is if he was going to burn the Mona Lisa or maybe the last and only Koran then I would think differently.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 9, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I stand with you on this principle, as does Bill and others here too I am sure, when I concurr that trying to stop this unfortunate man from committing the act of book burning would be as wrong as trying to stop other fundamentalist christians from burning copies of Harry Potter (small "C" as I don't think they are representative of the church at large).



Yes, I agree completely.  I read this news item this morning:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ld-pressures-Obama-to-stop-Koran-burning.html

I understand that the Muslim world is pressuring President Obama to 'stop' the book-burning.  He cannot, and I would sincerely hope that he not try to stop it by legal means.  By argument and persuasion, yes, but by fiat, no.  This hateful 'speech' is constitutionally protected.

This is the cost of freedom.  That a small, hateful, leader of 50 damaged souls can put soldier's lives in danger around the world so that he can demonstrate his ugly soul.  So be it.  I would not stop him by legal means, let him do what he will.

I will buy a Koran on 9/11.  I would urge others to do the same.  A small symbolic gesture, but that's about all I can think of.


----------



## crushing (Sep 9, 2010)

Where have we heard the whole "yes _they_ have a right to do it, but we question the wisdom in doing it" thing before?

Maybe they aren't really going to burn the books, but just want to grab attention to make a point?  And, by not burning the books, they may think they will be seen as taking a higher road than another "they" have taken.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 9, 2010)

crushing said:


> Where have we heard the whole "yes _they_ have a right to do it, but we question the wisdom in doing it" thing before?



I presume you mean the so-called _'Ground Zero Mosque'_.  I do see the similarities.

However, I note that several in this thread have equated not burning the Koran with _'bending over backwards for Islam'_ and others have likewise called allowed the Mosque to be built _'bending over backward for Islam'_.  Now which is it?  They can't have it both ways.

Personally, I feel that building the Mosque is not unwise, but that burning the Koran is unwise.  Two different subjects, two different opinions.

I also note that no one is protesting Dove Outreach Center with picket signs, burning Jones in effigy, or threatening to erect Mosques next door in order to offend him.  So it seems the outcry has a less threatening tone.  Similar levels of anger and disapproval, but those doing the disapproving seem to be (from where I'm sitting) to be somewhat less violent or encouraging of violence.



> Maybe they aren't really going to burn the books, but just want to grab attention to make a point?  And, by not burning the books, they may think they will be seen as taking a higher road than another "they" have taken.



My suspicion is that the pastor is just a whack-job.  I think he's filled with hatred and that's what drives him.

In other news, it appears that he is being criticized by none other than the Westboro Baptist Church!  Oh yeah!  But not for the reasons one might think.

http://www.military.com/news/articl...gry-on-quran-burning.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS



> Her irritation Wednesday was not that the Rev. Terry Jones and his  Dove World Outreach Center's planned bonfire would offend Muslims  worldwide and probably increase the danger to American troops in  Afghanistan and Iraq.
> *It's that in 2008 she and her father's Topeka flock set fire to a  Quran in plain view on a Washington, D.C., street and nobody seemed to  care. *
> 
> "We did it a long time before this guy," Phelps-Roper said by telephone  from a street corner in downtown Chicago, scene of the latest Westboro  picket -- against Jews this time, not gays.  The difference could be that in 2008 many news media outlets had  decided to ignore the group's routine of spewing hatred at funerals of  fallen American troops.
> So when Fred Phelps, calling Muhammad a "pedophilic gigolo," went  online and invited people to attend the burning, most stayed away.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 9, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> NO goddamnit NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
> You're doing it too!
> 
> 'They' didn't start this mess. A group of ****tards started this mess, using Islam simply as a vehicle for their hatred. I've said it before and I will say it again: Islam is not any more to blame for 9/11 than Christianity for the crusades.
> ...


 
I see your point and well taken. I guess what needs to be done is this he has the right to buy and do what he pleases to the book, whether it is morally right or wrong is between him and God. I am in no way going to give this guy any props he is a simple idiot and the media is making him a bigger person in the eye's of alot of people. I would say he will not burn anything let alone the books. He is looking for something no matter what road he takes it is soley a path he will have to bare in the eyes of the Lord one day.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 9, 2010)

As much as I`d like to sock that idiot in the jaw and air drop him over Afgahnistan, dealing with the fallout of his actions (not to mention that of politicians) is an occopational hazard for the troops over there.

The media should ignore him just like they did Phelps.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 9, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well, almost no one.
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...aith-call-to-oppose-Koran-burning.-Who-didn-t
> 
> ...



When something like this muppet burning the koran is all over the radio and news (and it is here too all over the place) yet nothing is mentioned about the us government and all the religious organizations condeming it (which would give the extremists a  perfectly logical reason to believe the us is really a threat to Islam) something is definitely wrong with the media or the system or both here.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 9, 2010)

To repeat, this jack *** is a friend of PHELPS!!!
That said, there is no right not to be offended. Free speech means some of it WILL piss you off. Being civilized means knowing "sticks and stones..."


----------



## Eazy (Sep 9, 2010)

Gidday Bill, good topic.
I think its an outragiously stupid thing to do, It can only promote trouble. 
After the goverments have spent so much tax payers money training Islamic country's with uniforms and weapons and putting our soldiers out there, on dangerous soil. Why give them even greater risk than they have now. This may well extend the peace effort put in by all theose great soldiers that miss there familys and risk there lives. These Thugs need to be prosecuted for such actions. To burn the book is not burning the soul or spirit of the believer. It sends a message of hate. This was never and should never be a religous War. Yes there was Muslims and others cheering or maybe just Terrorists hiding behind the Muslim faith to add fear into the Amerricans. Its real KKK style they are complete bloody idiots. Looking for trouble, We should send them to Iraq for a month given a Koran to take if they really want to burn it they burn it over there. Then see what happens, I bet they don't because they will be the ones on the front line. swap everyone of them out with a troop and call it give a troop a month off. I bet some troops are over there sweating on this.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 9, 2010)

Another great point


----------



## Eazy (Sep 9, 2010)

Tez3, This is the best punishment to fit the crime well thought out and well said.
Thanks from me to you and all the soldiers over there. My deepest condolences for all those that gave their lives and i wish you all the best and hope that you all come home in full tact. I would be over there to But i failed the test on two occasions Not smart enough But i can Rig Scaffold and drive Cranes Just because i wasn't the best at school my IQ is 115 not real high but not that low Just stuffed up under test pressure on the day i guess. Alot of the Spatural stuff got me because its new ive never done that stuff before. Its not just carring a gun and digging a trench any more so maybe it wasn't for me. Probably more disaplin than i can tolerate and my spellings up the creek, (spell check aint working).


----------



## Big Don (Sep 9, 2010)

Yet another great point


----------



## Eazy (Sep 9, 2010)

Maybe they could meet those who lost family members over there.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 10, 2010)

*What if media had ignored Terry Jones?*

Mike Thomas The ORLANDO SENTINEL EXCERPT (EMPHASIS MINE):

                            COMMENTARY
                                          8:00 PM EDT, September 8, 2010

​         The Rev. Terry Jones was a sad-sack preacher, lucky  to draw 50 people to his steel-shed house of prayer<<<SNIP>>> Bigger than his friend Phelps...
<<<>>>
, when the words  "burn" and "Quran" had an unfortunate collision in his limited brain.

That he has become an international phenomenon as a result must be a sign the apocalypse is near.

We actually have Gen. David Petraeus, Secretary of State Hillary  Clinton, the White House and even the pope pleading with a hick pastor  not to burn books. This is a guy who looks like Jed Clampett wearing a  Hulk Hogan mustache, who uses words like "tragical," who earlier this  year launched a "No homo mayor'' campaign against a candidate in  Gainesville.
<<<SNIP>>>
We could help head off such future nonsense if we folded up the circus  tent and left Jones alone with his blowtorch and 30 followers.

Maybe if Gen. Petraeus told the media that it isn't Rev. Jones who is  endangering troops. That it is our coverage of Rev. Jones. That without  us, this book burning would be little more than a grainy video on  YouTube.

Put the onus on a responsible party and hope it acts responsibly.
END EXCERPT
As if...


----------



## Eazy (Sep 10, 2010)

Im on your side in this debate hands down, This is action is only to promote trouble if not why do it?.
I will give the terrorists another reason to promote Anti Islam to there countrymen and recrute in turm putting  peice efforts back years in turn extending the stay of the troops and the longer they are there the more chance of being hurt. No one want's that. We need to finfish what we set out to do without more hurdles than there are and get the hell out of there and hand back their country.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 10, 2010)

Why the **** should someone overseas CARE if some hick pastor in the US is burning a Koran?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Why the **** should someone overseas CARE if some hick pastor in the US is burning a Koran?


Because of all the Hate Crimes against Muslims every time there is a flag burnt or IED in Crackpotistan...
Oh, wait...
FBI files, 10 TIMES as many hate crimes against Jews as against Muslims...


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 10, 2010)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11256182

"On Thursday, Mr Jones told reporters he had spent days *waiting for a sign from God* to cancel the protest, and that the sign had come in the form of a deal with a local imam to relocate a controversial Islamic cultural centre due to be built near Ground Zero in New York."

{Bold mine as that is really the core of this whole problem, IMNSHO}.

Oh and if this guy is a genuine Doctor as it says on the door of his shed ...


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 10, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Another great point



If by "great" you mean "wrong", then yes.  Although Chris Muir is opaque at even the best of times, so perhaps he was making a completely different point.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 10, 2010)

I see from the news that even without the act itself being carried out the response from the volatile young prophet-bothering faith is pretty much as might have been expected.

The thought occurs to me whether they realise that the actions they take, far from enhancing the credability of their religion, undermines the view (held by some of us) that, behind all the hoo-haa, there are reasonable people?


----------



## Marginal (Sep 10, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Why the **** should someone overseas CARE if some hick pastor in the US is burning a Koran?



The same reason the word "time table" somehow kills troops.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 10, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11256182
> 
> "On Thursday, Mr Jones told reporters he had spent days *waiting for a sign from God* to cancel the protest, and that the sign had come in the form of a deal with a local imam to relocate a controversial Islamic cultural centre due to be built near Ground Zero in New York."
> 
> ...



Sign from God=Visit from the IRS


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 10, 2010)

The repercussions have already started... as with this photo of angry Afghans shouting Anti-U.S. slogans and burning tires... 

way to go butt head! 



> Afghans shout anti-U.S. slogans as  they burn tires and block a highway during a protest in reaction to a  small American church's plan to burn copies of the Quran, at Jalalabad,  east of Kabul, Afghanistan, Friday, Sept. 10, 2010. Religious and  political leaders across the Muslim world welcomed a decision by the  church to suspend its plans to torch copies of their holy book but some  said Friday the damage has already been done. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
> http://denverpost.slideshowpro.com/...35.sJPG_950_2000_0_75_0_50_50.sJPG?1284176585


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 15, 2010)

Wow. This is quite a thread. There are a lot of good points and a fair amount of fluff as well.

We need to remember to not fall for the imagery being put on TV in the "news." They thrive on putting the extreme in front of us in order to sell more advertising. It's a freak show.

Moving on...

This arguement is never going to end. I watching the Zohan movie with Adam Sandler last night, and I got a laugh when his mother said, "We've been fighting for 2000 years, it must be ending pretty soon." *sighhhhhh*

My own thoughts have changed over the years. I'm middle aged now, and do not have the hard-line attitude "my way or the highway" and the "I know everything" attitude. I've discovered life's journey and realize my views will probably change again.

Discussions like these are helpful if they encourage a peaceful resolution. But lumping whole groups of people into a single term like "they" and "them" does not help anything.

I've been to Pakistan 3 times this year. I've seen Christians and Churches in places I never dreamed. No fighting. No trash-talking. There's more violence between Islamic sects than between different religions there.

The feeling I got there was "they" just want to live in peace the same way "we" do.

Try not to let a few bad apples spoil the bunch. And....keep seeking the truth, openly. The ignorance on TV will not help you.


----------



## Ray (Sep 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> What "civil liberties" are we discussing in THIS thread?
> 
> This kooks right to burn a Koran? he does have that right.
> 
> This is the other side of the Mosque debate. While I don't agree with the timing and placement of the Mosque. I defend the RIGHT of the guy to build it. While this nut is...well a nut...what are you suggesting should be done here??


I may have read the thread too quickly and too late; for me the whole of the issue is that Freedom of Speech is a vital fundamental right of the US.  No one seems to have like the proposed burning of the Koran, neither do I.  I don't like flag burning; I don't like burning political figures in effigy; I don't like burning bibles, book of mormons, bhagva-gita (sp), the tao te ching, On the Origin of Species, A Brief History of the History...but the right to speak popularly and unpopularly in word and deed was the heart of the debate.

We should fear the loss of a freedom more than the fear of an unpopular idea.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 17, 2010)

Ray said:


> I may have read the thread too quickly and too late; for me the whole of the issue is that Freedom of Speech is a vital fundamental right of the US.  No one seems to have like the proposed burning of the Koran, neither do I.  I don't like flag burning; I don't like burning political figures in effigy; I don't like burning bibles, book of mormons, bhagva-gita (sp), the tao te ching, On the Origin of Species, A Brief History of the History...but the right to speak popularly and unpopularly in word and deed was the heart of the debate.
> 
> We should fear the loss of a freedom more than the fear of an unpopular idea.



Actually, ... this guy absolutely has the right to burn the Koran. And the other people have the right to tell him it is stupid, and they even have the right to tell him that he shouldn't do it. That's freedom


----------



## Ray (Sep 17, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Actually, ... this guy absolutely has the right to burn the Koran. And the other people have the right to tell him it is stupid, and they even have the right to tell him that he shouldn't do it. That's freedom


I will agree with that in general.  I would argue that Hillary Clinton, Barry Obama, and other politicians should not publicly comment on the rightness/wrongness of a citizen exercising a constitutional right when exercised in a legal manner.


----------



## crushing (Sep 17, 2010)

For some perspective on this HUGE international news story, here is a "Chart of the Day" from http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/an-apology-from-marty-contd.html


----------



## Ray (Sep 17, 2010)

crushing said:


> For some perspective on this HUGE international news story, here is a "Chart of the Day" from http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/an-apology-from-marty-contd.html


Nice chart.  Looks like big Green Apple and an Orange.  I love comparing apples with oranges.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 20, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457
> 
> We've said that if this church costs any of our troops their lives, we will come across and they will wish they'd never been born. It's not a threat, it's a promise.


 
Is this a tongue in cheek comment? If not, I suggest you use that you use that line on the Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS (note I said fundamentalists) in your own country. Ah, but no. You're too afraid of offending those guys.

The only "coming across" that Brits will be doing, is for the annual two weeks in in Florida.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 20, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> And who made the Saudi 'Royal Family' and who divided up the Middle East into sections putting people on thrones that didn't exist, making borders where there were none? The Allies did after the First World War, we reap what we sow.


 
Exactly! We reap what we sow. The same can be said for the Brits in the North of Ireland. Do we agree?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 20, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Ah but you have a comfortable life in America, I think that most of these arguments are academic for you, you haven't the experience most countries have in fascism, communism, dictators, wars, being bombed, (70th anniversdary of the Blitz this week), resistance etc. Easy for you to pass judgement on the rest of us when it's a academic for you.
> 
> Oh well would love to stay and chat but car and bags packed for time away in sunny Cornwall. Don't do all the controversial stuff while I'm away!


 
Academics... you elitist pissant! Tell this to the thousands of Vietnam vets who served honorably in the war and lived to tell the tale. Tell that to the WW2 vets who served in Europe and saved the **** of the British. Tell that to the brave souls who fought in Korea.

Many Americans have seen what fascism, communism, totalitarianism and every other God forsaken ism has done for the world at large and have risked their lives to preserve the freedoms we have here in the US and *YOU* have in what was once Great Britain.
You show understanding for Islamic cultures that stone women to death for adultery and cut the heads off of westerners simply for being westerners and yet you condemn a lone nut in Florida for burning copies of the Koran.


----------



## Ray (Sep 20, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Is this a tongue in cheek comment? If not, I suggest you use that you use that line on the Islamic FUNDAMENTALISTS (note I said fundamentalists) in your own country. Ah, but no. You're too afraid of offending those guys.
> 
> The only "coming across" that Brits will be doing, is for the annual two weeks in in Florida.


Personally I'm not afraid of people being offended by a legal display of free speech...Personally I wouldn't burn a koran, bible, flag, or any figure in effigy.  But I've been known to offend people intentionally and unintentionally and in some of the most uncomfortable places.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 20, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Ah but you have a comfortable life in America, I think that most of these arguments are academic for you, you haven't the experience most countries have in fascism, communism, dictators, wars, being bombed, (70th anniversdary of the Blitz this week), resistance etc. Easy for you to pass judgement on the rest of us when it's a academic for you.


 
I would suggest that you be very careful in telling others what their experiences in life have been.  For certain, you have no idea other then what they tell you.

But, as a suggestion, I do find that when you can no longer legitimately debate someone, you turn to the ad hominem attack, ie., you couldn't possibly know because of "X". 

Also, there is nothing wrong with an academic understanding of an issue.  I would, also as a suggestion, maybe say that your opinion might be clouded because of your intimate and personal familiarity of these situations.  Perhaps you can't look outside of your own emotional responses to various situations, which then cause you to tell others that they can't possibly understand. 

Some might suggest that an outside view of certain issues can bring a broader perspective.  After all, isn't that what science and academia is all about.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 20, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> The same can be said for the Brits in the North of Ireland. Do we agree?


 
Actually, no. The majority of people in Northern Ireland at the time wanted to stay with the UK, they still do, though the numbers are down, mostly because of immigration and a higher RC birthrate.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 20, 2010)

I dare not speak for TEZ, but I believe she was referring specifically to the destruction of European cities and resulting civilian deaths. While our infrastructure and civilians here in North America got off easy by comparison.

Im not taking sides here, but Im always amazed that 65 years after WW2 ended so many people bring up, to the Brits in an argument, that if it wasnt for us youd be speaking German. I have never doubt US commitment to the west and the world for that matter, some of it was selfish, some was by necessity and some was selfless, but many, many other countries were involved in the wars of the 20th century against the various forms of totalitarianism.  

Look at the deaths as a percentage of population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
Many countries suffered more then the US, or the UK, that by no mean diminishes any of their dead, to me the death of one soldier is a great number and should be honoured, regardless of their country of origin. 

The US and the UK, add in Canada and a dozen other countries have all been allies for a very long time, I have no doubt that when the next big war hits, and if history has taught us anything, it will, we will stand together again and bleed together again.

Get over it all folks.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 20, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> I dare not speak for TEZ, but I believe she was referring specifically to the destruction of European cities and resulting civilian deaths. While our infrastructure and civilians here in North America got off easy by comparison.
> 
> Im not taking sides here, but Im always amazed that 65 years after WW2 ended so many people bring up, to the Brits in an argument, that if it wasnt for us youd be speaking German. I have never doubt US commitment to the west and the world for that matter, some of it was selfish, some was by necessity and some was selfless, but many, many other countries were involved in the wars of the 20th century against the various forms of totalitarianism.
> 
> ...


 
With all due respect for your position, Tez often says that Americans don't understand.  Europeans did suffer more civilian casualties during WW2 then we did, fair enough.  But her position is (and often is) that Americans can't know anything about oppression, dictatorship, facism, or any number of other things due to being American.

In that, she is just plain wrong.  No one is diminishing the death of Europeans, however, as York pointed out, death in war against facism, oppression, and dictatorship is by no means foreign to us.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 21, 2010)

I think that what might be happening here is a clash of perspectives and an abrasive collision of pride.  Whilst this *is* a discussion forum, there are sometimes things that are better not said for the sake of general harmony.

Perhaps a return to topic might be a good idea at this juncture?


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 21, 2010)

Free speach is protected here in the US.  To force this guy not to burn the koran would be wrong and in fact give the terrorist another victory, by changing our country through thier influence.  If he had burned the koran, his action would have contributed to more violence and has contributed to more hate of America.  That is the consequence.  While he had the right to burn the koran, WE have to live with the consequences.  One of the great institutions in America is our free media. Unfortunately, the media has beome our own monster of sort.  They report on news as a sort of entertainment, without an eye for the consequences of what they report.  In my opinion, this pastor had the full right to burn the koran, but the media did not have to cover it in the manner to which they did.  Given thier coverage, I think they had a responsibility to cover those opposed to the burning.  You know, that fair and balanced thing we hear so much about, but rarely see in any media source?

For those that want to paint Muslims with the same brush, think about the number of Muslims there are.  Logic dictates that if the majority of Muslims were the radical, kill-the-infidel, American hating terrorist you think they are, the west would already be burning.  The majority are normal people, wanting nothing more than to live thier lives.  Yes, there are Islamic radicals that hate us, just as there are Christian radicals that hate them.  I believe the intelligent thing to do is give no radical group power by falling for thier hate speach.

I do think that some people forget what America is, including Americans.  We are not Christian.  We are not Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buhdist or any other religion.  We are all of those.  That is what it means to be a secular government "of the people."  When you start picking out certain religions as targets for censure because of the actions of a few members of that religion, you are censuring fellow Americans for thier religious beliefs.  That in itself is un-American and should be fought against as zelously as we fight against the terrorist.  Otherwise we are not living up to our ideals and really are falling into the religious bigotry America was founded to be a refuge against.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 21, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> Actually, no. The majority of people in Northern Ireland at the time wanted to stay with the UK, they still do, though the numbers are down, mostly because of immigration and a higher RC birthrate.


Actually I meant that there are a small number of cretins who sour the waters for everyone else. The majority of Catholics are not evil people, but there are a few who use violence and the threat of violence to gain political browny points so to speak. The same can be said for Protestants and Muslims.
I have a problem with any Christian church leader that wouldn't denounce the bombing of a "Planned Parenthood". Now if the same leadership partially blamed the victims of said bombing for the act, I would take deep offense.
I feel the same way about any Islamic cleric who states that the US is reaping what it has sown. I really don't care about anyone's interpretation of the politics involved. I think such things shouldn't be said out of care for victims and their families.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 21, 2010)

Someone I discuss issues with wrote:

_"Moderate" Muslims are the greased skids for sharia ride. They never stand up to the crazy imams or the Mutawa (religious police). A quick check of the Koran always confirms that the nuts are right and the moderates are wrong - so sane Muslims back down._

While I don't quite know if I agree with the wording or tone. The sentiment kind of sums up the the question of why there isn't more active or at least vocal condemnation amongst the moderate rank and file.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 21, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> I dare not speak for TEZ, but I believe she was referring specifically to the destruction of European cities and resulting civilian deaths. While our infrastructure and civilians here in North America got off easy by comparison.


Americans certainly didn't get off easy on 9/11. Ah, but maybe Tez knows better. She was saying that we in the US live cushy lives and don't understand the pain of the rest of the world. What I'm saying is that good people have given their lives and still continue to give them for the lives we lead in the US. I certainly live a blessed life, but I've worked hard to get the life I now live, as have thousands of people here in the US.

If Irene really believe that Americans live cushy lives without suffering, poverty and violence, I'll glady take her to see some mates of mine in East LA. <aybe she might just change her mind. There are places in LA that make Moss side look like downtown Disney. Until that time, you'll only catch me in the safety of the OC.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 21, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> Free speach is protected here in the US. To force this guy not to burn the koran would be wrong and in fact give the terrorist another victory, by changing our country through thier influence. If he had burned the koran, his action would have contributed to more violence and has contributed to more hate of America.


 
No, it would have been the actions of the terrorists that would contributed to more violence and hate of the U.S.

Remember, it is not what happens to us, but our reaction to what happens to us that make us what we are.

I can't see how the burning of any book, with *maybe *the exception of a one of a kind print, could possibly justify a violent and hatefull reaction, even a religious text.  

But then we both know that it would just be an excuse for them to do continue to do what they want to do / are already doing.



> That is the consequence. While he had the right to burn the koran, WE have to live with the consequences.


 
And lets blame the right people.  It's not this man, but those that would commit violence.



> One of the great institutions in America is our free media. Unfortunately, the media has beome our own monster of sort. They report on news as a sort of entertainment, without an eye for the consequences of what they report.


 
I'm pretty sure that they count on the consequences of what they report, and are not oblivious to them.



> In my opinion, this pastor had the full right to burn the koran, but the media did not have to cover it in the manner to which they did. Given thier coverage, I think they had a responsibility to cover those opposed to the burning. You know, that fair and balanced thing we hear so much about, but rarely see in any media source?


 
You mean how the media kept showing Obama and Petreaus were opposed to it.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/06/petraeus-warns-churchs-koran-burning/




> For those that want to paint Muslims with the same brush, think about the number of Muslims there are. Logic dictates that if the majority of Muslims were the radical, kill-the-infidel, American hating terrorist you think they are, the west would already be burning. The majority are normal people, wanting nothing more than to live thier lives. Yes, there are Islamic radicals that hate us, just as there are Christian radicals that hate them. I believe the intelligent thing to do is give no radical group power by falling for thier hate speach.


 
You make a number of assumptions here, most of which are wrong or ignorant.

Logic, as you say, dictates no such thing.  First, you need to think about the consequences of a technologically inferior Muslim country attempting to destroy the United States or other Western countries.  They would be destroyed.  It wouldn't even be a contest.  Why do you think that we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.  It would cause the same threat that North Korea would.

Secondly, your assumption that every Muslim that hates, and consequently wants the West destroyed, would actually take take up arms to cause its destruction.  The study of human psychology refutes that.  Most individuals have an abject revulsion to actually taking a life.  However, it does not mean that they believe that it should never be taken, nor does it mean that they would not support those who would take a life.  

Thirdly, you are making the assumption that their primary goal is to cause physical destruction.  I propose that what they primarily and actually want to do is impose Sharia law upon the world, the West in particular.  This does not necessarily mean the physical destruction of the West.  However, if physical destruction leads the way as a tactic to implement their strategic reforms, then they will do so.  


I do think that some people forget what America is, including Americans. We are not Christian. We are not Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buhdist or any other religion. We are all of those. That is what it means to be a secular government "of the people." When you start picking out certain religions as targets for censure because of the actions of a few members of that religion, you are censuring fellow Americans for thier religious beliefs. That in itself is un-American and should be fought against as zelously as we fight against the terrorist. Otherwise we are not living up to our ideals and really are falling into the religious bigotry America was founded to be a refuge against.[/quote]

Only if that religion is not bent upon the destruction of your culture.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 22, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Only if that religion is not bent upon the destruction of your culture.


 
This line alone seems arrogant and ignorant.  To think that 1.8 billion people of a religion want to destroy our culture...really?  Especially considering the many, many, moderates of that religion who live in the US or actually try to immulate much of our culture.  Yes, there are people in this world that want to do harm to the US.  For the leaders of these misguided idiots it has less to do with religion than it does personal power.  To think an entire religion is out to get you...er I mean your country sounds likes someone has a persecition complex.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 22, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> This line alone seems arrogant and ignorant. To think that 1.8 billion people of a religion want to destroy our culture...really? Especially considering the many, many, moderates of that religion who live in the US or actually try to immulate much of our culture. Yes, there are people in this world that want to do harm to the US. For the leaders of these misguided idiots it has less to do with religion than it does personal power. To think an entire religion is out to get you...er I mean your country sounds likes someone has a persecition complex.


 
First, I never mentioned that any particular religion, though since this thread is about Islam, I can see you you might think so.

Second, what about everything else that I said?

Thirdly, how do you know that its about personal power, and not an aspect of their religion. 

Once again, I find it funny that you and others think you know more about Islam then the people who were born live, breath and eat the religion.  All I'm doing is asking questions.  In response, I get this nebulous "many moderates" comment.  If you think I have a persecution complex, let me just show you this from the Free Muslim Coalition (Against Terrorism):



> *The Free Muslims was created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism* and to strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World by supporting Islamic reformation efforts.
> 
> The Free Muslims promotes a modern secular interpretation of Islam which is peace-loving, democracy-loving and compatible with other faiths and beliefs. The Free Muslims' efforts are unique; *it is the only mainstream American-Muslim organization willing to attack extremism and terrorism unambiguously. Unfortunately most other Muslim leaders believe that in terrorist organizations, the end justifies the means.*
> 
> ...


 
So let's see.  A group of Muslims found an organization because they believe that the leaders within the religion advocate violence.  Not only that, but few if any Muslim groups will not speak out unambiguously against terrorism.  

But I'm the guy who has the persecution complex... please!  Give me a break.

Of course, what is ironic about this group is that they support a *secular *interpretation of the religion.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 23, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Someone I discuss issues with wrote:
> 
> _"Moderate" Muslims are the greased skids for sharia ride. They never stand up to the crazy imams or the Mutawa (religious police). A quick check of the Koran always confirms that the nuts are right and the moderates are wrong - so sane Muslims back down._
> 
> While I don't quite know if I agree with the wording or tone. The sentiment kind of sums up the the question of why there isn't more active or at least vocal condemnation amongst the moderate rank and file.


 
Vocal condemnation of "crazy imams" results in death in countries other than the US. They do not have freedom of speech as we do.

I think you will hear more speech against violence by U.S. muslim citizens who do not have to travel overseas where they could be killed for their words.

We're not just dealing with a religion, but rather populations of countries lead by fanatics.

Tow the party line, or go to jail, or worse. It's nothing new, really.

What needs to stop is the association of Islam with terrorism. The people who commmited those crimes on 9/11 were not acting as Muslims. They owned a distorted view of their religion and used it to recruit weak people to do evil things.

Rewards given to good Muslims are not given for murderous acts. They are given for praying and giving to the poor.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 23, 2010)

Monadnock said:


> Vocal condemnation of "crazy imams" results in death in countries other than the US. They do not have freedom of speech as we do.
> 
> I think you will hear more speech against violence by U.S. muslim citizens who do not have to travel overseas where they could be killed for their words.
> 
> We're not just dealing with a religion, but rather populations of countries lead by fanatics.


 
So millions of Muslims tacitly condone terror done in their name by, according to people here, a small handful of people throughout the world because they are afraid that they might be killed.  If, as the pundits like to say, the murdering extremists are so extremely minor, wouldn't they be relatively easy to depose.  After all, even most of the civilians in these countries have arms with which to rebel.  They could speak out in relative peace because they can fight back.




> Tow the party line, or go to jail, or worse. It's nothing new, really.


 
It may be nothing new, but the dynamics of communications and travel have changed considerably.  That means that the people in those countries are not as isolated as they once were, even if they are still so relatively.



> What needs to stop is the association of Islam with terrorism. The people who commmited those crimes on 9/11 were not acting as Muslims. They owned a distorted view of their religion and used it to recruit weak people to do evil things.
> 
> Rewards given to good Muslims are not given for murderous acts. They are given for praying and giving to the poor.


 
For them, these are not crimes or murder.  For them, these are legitimate acts of warfare, however we may choose to view them.

But, please, tell me.  Where do you get your expert knowledge of Islam?  How is it that you know that these people were not acting as Muslims?  How do you know that their view is the distorted view of Islam?  From where did you gain your expertise to know such thing?


----------



## Marginal (Sep 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> No, it would have been the actions of the terrorists that would contributed to more violence and hate of the U.S.
> 
> Remember, it is not what happens to us, but our reaction to what happens to us that make us what we are.



Actions have no consequences, but reactions do?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 24, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Actions have no consequences, but reactions do?


 
I'm talking about responsibility.  I don't discount that the pastor's actions would have consequenses.  But the responsibility for the death and destruction would not be the pastor's, but those who actually cause the death and destruction.

I would pose this to you, as a legal example.  In the U.S. you can be forced, by threat of violence to commit a crime, and therefore absolve yourself of criminal responsibility.  However, there is one crime which would not be absolved by this defense.

Homicide.

That is the sole responsibility of the person who commits the actual act.

Every free act has consequenses, whether positive or negative.  Should we remove free speech in this country due to the fact that someone may commit violence due to what was said.  If that be the case, then Martin Luther King, Jr. is the one responsible for his own death, and not the shooter.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So millions of Muslims tacitly condone terror done in their name by, according to people here, a small handful of people throughout the world because they are afraid that they might be killed. If, as the pundits like to say, the murdering extremists are so extremely minor, wouldn't they be relatively easy to depose. After all, even most of the civilians in these countries have arms with which to rebel. They could speak out in relative peace because they can fight back.


 
Easy to depose? How long has the best fighting force been in Afghanistan trying to "depose" the Taliban? 9+ years? Now you think the civilians there can do it with a few rifles? 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> It may be nothing new, but the dynamics of communications and travel have changed considerably. That means that the people in those countries are not as isolated as they once were, even if they are still so relatively.


 
Poverty and border control are actually quite restrictive. Many people are prisoners in their own country just by the fact they live there. I would say they are quite isolated and unprotected by human rights organizations.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> For them, these are not crimes or murder. For them, these are legitimate acts of warfare, however we may choose to view them.
> 
> But, please, tell me. Where do you get your expert knowledge of Islam? How is it that you know that these people were not acting as Muslims? How do you know that their view is the distorted view of Islam? From where did you gain your expertise to know such thing?


 
"Expert". No, clearly you're the expert here. Clearly you have read the QURAN cover to cover, all the Hadith and are very good at educating us in this forum, right?

If you dispute what I said are the 2 greatest things you can do in the name of Islam, Prayer and giving to the poor, please do so, rather than try to attach my credibility. If you are unread in such topics, and only with to argue, I have no more to say.

If you can dispute that murder is punishable under Islam, please do so.

Al-Quaeda is said ot have around 10,000 members out of a religion of 1.5 billion. I would in fact call their view a minority view and a distorted view of Islam.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So millions of Muslims tacitly condone terror done in their name by, according to people here, a small handful of people throughout the world because they are afraid that they might be killed.



Do you expect all christians to publicly denounce every nutter who targets an abortion clinic? Or is their silence an indication of approval?


----------



## Marginal (Sep 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Should we remove free speech in this country due to the fact that someone may commit violence due to what was said.  If that be the case, then Martin Luther King, Jr. is the one responsible for his own death, and not the shooter.



1st amendment doesn't cover speech that provokes imminent lawless action.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 24, 2010)

Marginal said:


> 1st amendment doesn't cover speech that provokes imminent lawless action.


So, what you're saying is that if I take such offense at what you say on this forum as to come to your house and kick your teeth in, your words have "provoked imminent lawless action" and are therefore unlawful. Hmmmm, good to know.


----------



## Ray (Sep 24, 2010)

Marginal said:


> 1st amendment doesn't cover speech that provokes imminent lawless action.


You need to clarify your legal theory.  

Take for example: if I tell someone who has a gun in their hands "I think you're dumb" and they shoot me, then what's the law on that?

If I burn an American flag and someone who is very patriotic becomes angry and attacks me, then what's the law on that?

If I burn a Koran as an act of free speech (as an American) and imbecile reacts with violence, then what's the US constitution say on that?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 24, 2010)

Monadnock said:


> Easy to depose? How long has the best fighting force been in Afghanistan trying to "depose" the Taliban? 9+ years? Now you think the civilians there can do it with a few rifles?


 
You completely misunderstand the dynamic involved.

Don't you think there is a difference between an outside army and culture attempting to change another country and an internal struggle?

You seem to be making the assumption that this would be a purely military struggle, and not a struggle based on a cultural and political dynamic.  One which very few in the United States understands.  That coupled with a military dimension could allow those "few" (although damn near everyone in those countries owns weapons) civilians with their "few" rifles to win such a struggle.



> Poverty and border control are actually quite restrictive. Many people are prisoners in their own country just by the fact they live there. I would say they are quite isolated and unprotected by human rights organizations.


 
No one said that those things weren't controlled in *some *of those countries.  But you can't control the airwaves.  Beyond which, you're missing yet another dynamic.  Islamic terrorism isn't merely restricted to the Middle East and Afganistan.  It's Chechnya, the Phillipines, southern China, Pakistan.  Travellers from all over the world go to these countries.  Information is spread in them in abundance which could show them the error of their ways. 





> "Expert". No, clearly you're the expert here. Clearly you have read the QURAN cover to cover, all the Hadith and are very good at educating us in this forum, right?
> 
> If you dispute what I said are the 2 greatest things you can do in the name of Islam, Prayer and giving to the poor, please do so, rather than try to attach my credibility. If you are unread in such topics, and only with to argue, I have no more to say.


 
No I have not, which is why I continue to ask question, to which I am given replies with no evidence, and are nebulous at best.  You are the one making the claim.  In a debate, it is up to the claimant to provide proof of their position, not merely for the other person to refute it.  I'm the one damn near begging people to show me that the things that terrorists and their supporters condone are not a part of the Islamic faith.

However, I have read articles by Muslims, spoken to Muslims, spoken to those that have lived in Muslim countries, spoken to terrorism experts, read books on terrorism and Islam, listened to Muslim speakers, and a few other things.  

What have you done?

But, since you choose to get all defensive about it, I will suppose that you can not prove your position, which leaves me, as the questionee, to assume that there is no proof which supports your position.  Not only that, but I wasn't attacking your credibilty, merely asking for your credentials.

Not only that, but even if those are two of the greatest things under Islamic edict, that still in no way says that what modern day terrorists are doing is outside of the perviews of that faith.  That is what you, and others, have yet to refute.



> If you can dispute that murder is punishable under Islam, please do so.


 
It doesn't matter if it is or not.  But that supposes that Islamic courts / Imams would consider these acts murder.  That is the key point, not whether murder is a crime.

To put is another way, here in the U.S., there is a crime of murder which is punishable under the law.  But not every act of homicide is a murder.

Remember, what is deemed murder is a cultural attribute.  In some countries, they look upon our death penalty as murder.  The stoning of women who have been raped for being unpure is something that most Westerners would consider murder.  What's your point?



> Al-Quaeda is said ot have around 10,000 members out of a religion of 1.5 billion. I would in fact call their view a minority view and a distorted view of Islam.


 
With all due respect, that shows an ignorance on your part in the understanding of modern Islamic terrorism.  Your statement proposes that Al-Queada is the only terrorist group, and only members of that group are terrorists.  What about Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipiness, Al-Shabaab in Somolia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in "Palestine", just to name a few.  It also ignores the non-active supporters throughout the world, such as the UCSD student that I showed. 

Not only that, but you also seem to be ignoring the spread of Islam, from it's very beginning, with the sword.  Islamic history is replete with a history of attempted conversion, or forced living under Sharia law, through the use of violence.  

And before you start, no, that is not to say that other religions have not done the same thing *at times*.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 24, 2010)

Marginal said:


> 1st amendment doesn't cover speech that provokes imminent lawless action.


 
So then we should never allow neo-Nazi's to speak, nor the Black Panthers.  Also, we should curb religious outcries against abortion, or environmental activism.  After all, each of these types of speech can be said to be linked to eventual "lawless action."

You actually misunderstand the law, at least how it has been adjudicated in California.  It is not speech that provokes imminent lawless action.  It is speech that *intentionally incites an imediate violent action.  *Whether you choose to believ it or not, that is a totally other thing.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So then we should never allow neo-Nazi's to speak, nor the Black Panthers.  Also, we should curb religious outcries against abortion, or environmental activism.  After all, each of these types of speech can be said to be linked to *eventual* "lawless action."



Well, then that action wouldn't be imminent now would it?


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You completely misunderstand the dynamic involved.
> 
> Don't you think there is a difference between an outside army and culture attempting to change another country and an internal struggle?
> 
> You seem to be making the assumption that this would be a purely military struggle, and not a struggle based on a cultural and political dynamic. One which very few in the United States understands. That coupled with a military dimension could allow those "few" (although damn near everyone in *those* countries owns weapons) civilians with their "few" rifles to win such a struggle.


 
No assumptions here, but you seem to be under the assumption that if you posit an impossible solution that these nations' citizens are not undertaking, it must be because they are sympathetic to terrorism. 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> No one said that those things weren't controlled in *some *of those countries. But you can't control the airwaves. Beyond which, you're missing yet another dynamic. Islamic terrorism isn't merely restricted to the Middle East and Afganistan. It's Chechnya, the Phillipines, southern China, Pakistan. Travellers from all over the world go to these countries. Information is spread in them in abundance which could show them the error of their ways.


 
You're serious, arent you... 



5-0 Kenpo said:


> No I have not, which is why I continue to ask question, to which I am given replies with no evidence, and are nebulous at best. You are the one making the claim. In a debate, it is up to the claimant to provide proof of their position, not merely for the other person to refute it. I'm the one damn near begging people to show me that the things that terrorists and their supporters condone are not a part of the Islamic faith.


 
The only claim I made, to which you decided to reply to in addition to lumping a slew of other concoctions, was that I stated the 2 of the greatest things a Muslim can do are to keep up Prayer, and give to the poor. Not a difficult claim to substantiate, if you read the QURAN. But if you wish to refute it, tell me what is greater for a Muslim to do, with sources. C'mon, you've read some books.

So, list the things that terrorists condone, and we can examine whether they are part of Islamic faith. (You may also need to define the Islamic faith, because a lot of Muslims consider it their duty to understand Islam their entire life, so we may be here a while waiting for you to enlighten us all as to what it's about...)



5-0 Kenpo said:


> However, I have read articles by Muslims, spoken to Muslims, spoken to those that have lived in Muslim countries, spoken to terrorism experts, read books on terrorism and Islam, listened to Muslim speakers, and a few other things.
> 
> What have you done?


 
That list is starting to read like a McDojo resume. "I've had my photo woth Chuck Norris, shook hands with Steven Seagal and sat next to Ed Parker." Clearly you are talking to all the wrong people, if you are "begging people to show you" that terrorism is not part of Islam.

But OK, I'll bite. I've also done everything you have explicitly listed, except read books on terrorism and "talked to experts" - whatever that means. In addition, I practice the faith, entered into Islamic martimonial engagement, and stayed in Pakistan 3 times (soon 4) this year alone. I'm as white as rice, and I walk freely and comfortably when I am there. Is it luck? However, I will admit, there are other Muslim majority countries I would not want to go to.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> But, since you choose to get all defensive about it, I will suppose that you can not prove your position, which leaves me, as the questionee, to assume that there is no proof which supports your position. Not only that, but I wasn't attacking your credibilty, merely asking for your credentials.
> 
> Not only that, but even if those are two of the greatest things under Islamic edict, that still in no way says that what modern day terrorists are doing is outside of the perviews of that faith. That is what you, and others, have yet to refute.


 
Nobody's defensive here. I'm quite centered and comfortable in my position, and it is easily proven. You chose to quote my initial post. (Also, up above you state in a debate someone cannot simply refute an assertion, so I think you mean I need to provide proof, if only I were here to talk about terrorists.) You say terrorism is within the perviews of that faith. Sounds like it is your burden to provide the proof.

My posts have to do with the innocent people whose religion you scrutinize due to the actions of a few in the name of said religion.

In support, I've only officially entered the following statements:
1. Prayer and paying the poor rate have great reward in the afterlife (not murder)
2. The fanatics are few, and control/silence the many innocent
3. Critics of terrorism in Muslim countries are vast, even if you do not hear them

Everything else is your position. I guess we can stop there, the rest of your points do not concern my topic, or original post.

But let's just suppose you somehow "win" your debate. You prove that Islam is centered on violence and a majority of the followers condone this violence and intend to spread their faith via such methods. (Although, it was not the intent of the 9/11 terrorists to spread Islam by flying planes into the towers.) Oh, that's right. They want to erradicate the non-believers, right? Yes, that's right. There's a verse somewhere that talks about it, so it must be the main objective of the entire religion. So let's forget all the other ones about not forcing Islam on non-believers.

As I stated before, terrists take a distorted interpretation and use it to force others to do their dirty work. If you agree with their hardline ideals, and say, "This must be the real goal of Islam," you only help to spread this distorted view.

I guess I've said all I can, or care to at this point. I suggest carefully thinking about the issue, and maybe getting some more information from reliable sources.

Take care,


----------



## elder999 (Sep 24, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So then we should never allow neo-Nazi's to speak, nor the Black Panthers. Also, we should curb religious outcries against abortion, or environmental activism. After all, each of these types of speech can be said to be linked to eventual "lawless action."


 
Burning crosses is illegal in many locations, simply because it's intimidating and insulting. 

There are, quite simply, some forms of "free speech" that are deemed to not be constitutionally _acceptable_. You can say pretty much what you want-protest all ya like-but certain actions are not permitted.

Publicly burning a Koran-or any holy scripture-is more of the same, IMNSHO.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 24, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> So, what you're saying is that if I take such offense at what you say on this forum as to come to your house and kick your teeth in, your words have "provoked imminent lawless action" and are therefore unlawful. Hmmmm, good to know.



You kinda miss the point. 

That's the 4th threat I've gotten from a right winger though. Fun forum.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 25, 2010)

As a Muslim friend told me after 911, according to his faith, "Killing one innocent carries the same guilt as if killing the entire human race."  That really sounds like someone who believes in using violence to convert someone...yeah that is sarcasm.

If you don't believe Muslims all over the world aren't denouncing killing and terrorism, you haven't been paying attention.  While such people do not get the media attention, they are there.  Heck, the imam in New York who has recieved so much attention lately is one of those people condemning terrorism.


----------



## Ray (Sep 25, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> As a Muslim friend told me after 911, according to his faith, "Killing one innocent carries the same guilt as if killing the entire human race."  That really sounds like someone who believes in using violence to convert someone...yeah that is sarcasm.
> 
> If you don't believe Muslims all over the world aren't denouncing killing and terrorism, you haven't been paying attention.  While such people do not get the media attention, they are there.  Heck, the imam in New York who has recieved so much attention lately is one of those people condemning terrorism.


Recently, I watched a Sunday morning news program.  I cannot remember the players, nor the program name.  I listened as a Muslim (who's role I believe was that of a leader, whether a "terroristic" or other group I cannot recall the name), he was specifically asked about the innocent lives lost in the 911 attacks.  He responded by saying that their were no innocents who died in the attacks; those who died were guilty of the "crimes" committed by their gov't (i.e. guilty for what the US gov't did) because the "innocents" voted for the gov't (that is: US is a democracy, if you vote for the wrong people then you're guilty.  If if you vote for the "right" people and they lose, then you apparently have to work against them).

We cannot judge the heart of a people by the hearts of a few.  We cannot even judge the heart of a person, so we must judge the action.  We cannot judge those actions when they are in another country, another culture, governed by a different set of laws; only when their actions are in violation of our laws.  The judgment should be no more than our laws allow.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 25, 2010)

Well put, *Ray*.

I am saddened to hear the words of the Muslim speaker.  They speak of the same type of indoctrination and lack of willingness to reason that we hear from the religiously prejudiced on our own shores.

It's a seductive argument in a way but flawed.  After all, by extending the scope of that attitude, it could be used to hold me to account for the Dresden bombings for no other reason than I tacitly supported those dreadful acts by voting for one part of our present coalition government (who are in their turn the inheritors of power from those who authorised the attacks).  I know that that is stretching the point rather but I think it does serve to illustrate the implicit problems of tarring all with too broad and indiscriminate a brush.


----------



## Ray (Sep 25, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Burning crosses is illegal in many locations, simply because it's intimidating and insulting.
> 
> There are, quite simply, some forms of "free speech" that are deemed to not be constitutionally _acceptable_. You can say pretty much what you want-protest all ya like-but certain actions are not permitted.
> 
> Publicly burning a Koran-or any holy scripture-is more of the same, IMNSHO.


To say "simply because it's intimidating..." seems to be intentionally misleading.  If you read the decision, I think you'll find that it is illegal when it is intentionally intimidating.   And although the statutes may read "insulting" obviously just because something is "insulting" it cannot (only for that reason) be illegal.

It should be pointed out that the supreme court rules on a "case" which then becomes the "standard" for interpretation of a law.   Now in the case of the specific cross-burning I'm pretty sure it was a burning in the backyard of a neighboring african-american man (or family).


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 25, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Academics... you elitist pissant! Tell this to the thousands of Vietnam vets who served honorably in the war and lived to tell the tale. Tell that to the WW2 vets who served in Europe and saved the **** of the British. Tell that to the brave souls who fought in Korea.
> 
> Many Americans have seen what fascism, communism, totalitarianism and every other God forsaken ism has done for the world at large and have risked their lives to preserve the freedoms we have here in the US and *YOU* have in what was once Great Britain.
> You show understanding for Islamic cultures that stone women to death for adultery and cut the heads off of westerners simply for being westerners and yet you condemn a lone nut in Florida for burning copies of the Koran.


 
I see even in my absence you are still insulting me. 

Saved the **** of the British? No, the RAF did that in the Battle of Britain, their bravery and sacrifice stopped Hitler from implementing the invasion of Great Britiain, the Americans didn't come into the war until well after that and yes we are greatful for their help but if the RAF hadn't done what they did there woud have been no Britain to save.

I show no tolerance of Islamic or tribal cultures that condone stoning women or anyone else to death and no I'm not afraid of Muslims or of Islam so just rein back your rhetoric for a while.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 25, 2010)

Marginal said:


> You kinda miss the point.
> 
> That's the 4th threat I've gotten from a right winger though. Fun forum.


Threat!LOL, you're obviously having a laugh.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I see even in my absence you are still insulting me.
> 
> Saved the **** of the British? No, the RAF did that in the Battle of Britain, their bravery and sacrifice stopped Hitler from implementing the invasion of Great Britiain, the Americans didn't come into the war until well after that and yes we are greatful for their help but if the RAF hadn't done what they did there woud have been no Britain to save.
> 
> I show no tolerance of Islamic or tribal cultures that condone stoning women or anyone else to death and no I'm not afraid of Muslims or of Islam so just rein back your rhetoric for a while.


 
You love dishing Irene, but you tend to resent it when you get it back. So, you believe that the Battle of Britain was the defining moment of WW2 that ultimately saved Britain and the rest of Europe from Nazi tyranny. I think there are many old and crusty US and Russian soldiers out there sitting in their Hoverrounds who may disagree with you. Who were fighting in Europe long after The Battle of Britain. As Germany would have just let Britain be, if they had won the war in Europe. What a laughable hypothesis.

Of course you show tolerance for Islamic extremists. What do you think this debate is about? You were saying that if soldiers get killed by Islamic lunatics, then a preacher who burns Korans is to blame. Like these lunatics are not at fault at all. You speak like they'll just be reacting to the situation because their cultural/religious belief deem violence the appropriate reaction. You even expressed the opinion that this guy should go preach in the middle east, knowing full well that he'd probably get beheaded.

I love how you go on the attack and then whinge like baby when you get it back.

Grow up Irene!!


----------



## Marginal (Sep 25, 2010)

yorkshirelad said:


> Threat!LOL, you're obviously having a laugh.



I figured we might as well both fudge the written word to unsuccessfully make a point.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2010)

Ray said:


> . Now in the case of the specific cross-burning I'm pretty sure it was a burning in the backyard of a neighboring african-american man (or family).


 
Actually, there have been several cases-the Supreme Court only ruled that states can make cross-burning illegal. In a few of those cases, such as that of white supremacist Tom Metzger, the cross was burned on public property, or property owned by an associate of the individual doing the burning, or the individual doing the burning.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2010)

*Admin Note:

Enough with the personal shots already.

If you can not debate this topic without resorting to insults, digs, and so forth, you'll find your time here cut short.  Warnings and Infractions have been issued. Lets not have need for more.  "Attack the message, not the messenger."

Thank you.*


----------



## Ray (Sep 25, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Actually, there have been several cases-the Supreme Court only ruled that states can make cross-burning illegal. In a few of those cases, such as that of white supremacist Tom Metzger, the cross was burned on public property, or property owned by an associate of the individual doing the burning, or the individual doing the burning.


No, you misunderstand...I'm referring to US Supreme Court cases with regard to Cross-Burning.  So far as I can find the was one (2002ish) and it had to do with a Virginia law, and a cross-burning that took place in a black neighbor's back yard.  And yes, the court-ruled it was legal to have such a law...of course, that doesn't say "it's absolutely illegal everywhere, always to burn a cross."  Just like burning a flag is illegal in certain circumstances...

For the record, I'm against cross-burning, flag-burning, Koran burning and burning a nice steak.  But I believe that the strength of the US is the constitution and the rights guarenteed therein...we shouldn't be afraid to here bad ideas and allow the public to replace them with something better.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2010)

Ray said:


> No, you misunderstand...I'm referring to US Supreme Court cases with regard to Cross-Burning. So far as I can find the was one (2002ish) and it had to do with a Virginia law, and a cross-burning that took place in a black neighbor's back yard. And yes, the court-ruled it was legal to have such a law...of course, that doesn't say "it's absolutely illegal everywhere, always to burn a cross." Just like burning a flag is illegal in certain circumstances...
> 
> For the record, I'm against cross-burning, flag-burning, Koran burning and burning a nice steak. But I believe that the strength of the US is the constitution and the rights guarenteed therein...we shouldn't be afraid to here bad ideas and allow the public to replace them with something better.


 
No, I understood you. All I'm saying is that some forms of "free speech" aren't constitutionally protected.

There are only 14 states that have laws against cross burning, though-it could, in fact, be tied to Scottish Highland events, or ancient Roman rituals, among other "non-intimidating, non-insulting" practices.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 26, 2010)

Whinging? No, chuckling to myself.

 :deadhorse

I really don't take the Study so seriously I have emotional issues about what's written here nor should anyone else. It's causing good serious posters to avoid this section when actually their imput would be insightful, we keep getting warnings from mods and threads being locked because posters get choleric over what others have written, many times needlessly. Misunderstandings are very common either intentionally or unintentionally and emotions are attributed when none exist. I think from now on I shall put a little smiley face on all my posts here to show I'm not taking this as seriously as people think I do! 


Elder, here's a wonderful mixing..the Scottish Fiery Cross and Harleys!

http://www.caledoniahc.com/club/clubFx.html


----------



## Ray (Sep 26, 2010)

elder999 said:


> There are only 14 states that have laws against cross burning, though-it could, in fact, be tied to Scottish Highland events, or ancient Roman rituals, among other "non-intimidating, non-insulting" practices.


When I wear a cross around my neck, I refer to it as a "plus sign."  The church I belong to doens't revere the cross.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 26, 2010)

elder999 said:


> Actually, there have been several cases-the Supreme Court only ruled that states can make cross-burning illegal. In a few of those cases, such as that of white supremacist Tom Metzger, the cross was burned on public property, or property owned by an associate of the individual doing the burning, or the individual doing the burning.


 
Not exactly.  In Virginia vs. Black, the Supreme Court ruled, for the purposes of our discussion, that there must be an intent to imtimidate in order for cross-burning to be a crime.  So the mere burning of the cross in not enough.  In fact, in the same case, the Supreme Court struck down some specific wording in the Virginia statute which says"  "Any such burning of a cross shall be _prima facie_ evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons."

So the state must prove an intent to intimidate.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 26, 2010)

Marginal said:


> Well, then that action wouldn't be imminent now would it?


 
Imminent:  likely to occur *at any moment.*

So yeah, it fits.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 26, 2010)

Monadnock said:


> No assumptions here, but you seem to be under the assumption that if you posit an impossible solution that these nations' citizens are not undertaking, it must be because they are sympathetic to terrorism.


 
Not at all, although I am not sure what impossible solution that I am supposed to be positing.

I am simply suggesting that there is no good reason, if they feel that their religion is being corrupted and destroyed, for them not to do something about it, whether politically or militarily.  

Remember, as you say, *most *Muslims believe that such acts as terrorism and extremism are evil and against the law of Allah.  As there are so few actual extremists, according to your argument, there should be nothing which keeps them from deposing those that are telling them to believe such and act on such beliefs.   Or, for that matter, not doing what they say, as they would find broad based support among the population at large.  And this is especially considering that in most Muslim countries, most of the adult male population is armed, and presumably willing to fight with said weapons.

So, for me, the question becomes, why aren't they doing so?




> You're serious, arent you...


 
If you think I mean the error of their ways in being Muslim, you would be incorrect.  I am referring to their supposed erroneous beliefs that acts of terror and violence are condoned by the law of Allah. 




> The only claim I made, to which you decided to reply to in addition to lumping a slew of other concoctions, was that I stated the 2 of the greatest things a Muslim can do are to keep up Prayer, and give to the poor. Not a difficult claim to substantiate, if you read the QURAN. But if you wish to refute it, tell me what is greater for a Muslim to do, with sources. C'mon, you've read some books.


 
Once again, I never said that these were not the two greatest things that a Muslim could do.  But, you have made the claim that the majority of Muslims don't believe in violence and terrorism, and those that do are in a minority and have a distorted view of Islam.



> Al-Quaeda is said ot have around 10,000 members out of a religion of 1.5 billion. I would in fact call their view a minority view and a distorted view of Islam.


 
This is a claim that you have made that I asked you to substantiate.  And you have yet to do so.  The point that I made can live concurrently with your statement.  Those can be the two greatest things that a Muslim can do *and *they can still believe in violence and terrorism.



> So, list the things that terrorists condone, and we can examine whether they are part of Islamic faith. (You may also need to define the Islamic faith, because a lot of Muslims consider it their duty to understand Islam their entire life, so we may be here a while waiting for you to enlighten us all as to what it's about...)


 
See, now you're talking.  All I have ever asked for is some evidence, based on Islamic law and faith, against the claims made by Muslim's regarding terrorism and violence.  But all I kept getting was the nebulous "most Muslims don't believe that" when I showed examples to the contrary.  Perhaps now we can get into specifics.  




> That list is starting to read like a McDojo resume. "I've had my photo woth Chuck Norris, shook hands with Steven Seagal and sat next to Ed Parker." Clearly you are talking to all the wrong people, if you are "begging people to show you" that terrorism is not part of Islam.


 
Take it for what you will.  I can understand that.  I can only tell you the sources from where I get my information.  As I am not Muslim, I can't really give you my interpretation of what the Quran and other Islamic texts mean.  I can only go by what information I glean from others, and therefore I list my sources.



> But OK, I'll bite. I've also done everything you have explicitly listed, except read books on terrorism and "talked to experts" - whatever that means.


 
When I refer to experts, I am referring to people who have worked in the FBI, CIA, BATFE, various think tanks, etc., who have spent many years studying and combatting terrorism.



> In addition, I practice the faith, entered into Islamic martimonial engagement, and stayed in Pakistan 3 times (soon 4) this year alone. I'm as white as rice, and I walk freely and comfortably when I am there. Is it luck? However, I will admit, there are other Muslim majority countries I would not want to go to.


 
Thank you, that certainly does provide some, what I would consider, legitimate perspective on this discussion.  

Although I do wonder why you place an emphasis on your ethnicity and safety in Pakistan.  I have never said that this was an issue of race.  We can certainly see that Muslims come in all shapes and sizes. 




> Nobody's defensive here. I'm quite centered and comfortable in my position, and it is easily proven. You chose to quote my initial post. (Also, up above you state in a debate someone cannot simply refute an assertion, so I think you mean I need to provide proof, if only I were here to talk about terrorists.) You say terrorism is within the perviews of that faith. Sounds like it is your burden to provide the proof.


 
Once again, I have made no such claim.  I have continually asked for evidence to the contrary, primarily because I am having a hard time refuting the claim that most Muslims are terrorists with hard and definitive facts.  I post evidence here that violence is condoned by them in order to get people to refute such claims with facts, and not nebulous statments such as "extremists are a minority", or "most Muslims aren't terrorists", as you and others assert.



> My posts have to do with the innocent people whose religion you scrutinize due to the actions of a few in the name of said religion.


 
You have just made a claim.  Prove to me, at least in some measure, that these actions are being committed by few people of that religion.  Then we can go point - counterpoint, so that I if no one else, can gain further perspective on the issue.




> In support, I've only officially entered the following statements:
> 1. Prayer and paying the poor rate have great reward in the afterlife (not murder)


 
Never disputed that, but it does nothing to further the discussion on whether terroism and acts of violence are or are not acceptable in the Islamic faith.



> 2. The fanatics are few, and control/silence the many innocent


 
A claim you have yet to justify in any manner what so ever, despite my repeatedly asking.



> 3. Critics of terrorism in Muslim countries are vast, even if you do not hear them


 
Show me where, give me sources, cite examples.  All of which I have asked for, yet you have failed to provide.

What's funny is that I am supposed to believe a supposition that I can't even hear.



> Everything else is your position. I guess we can stop there, the rest of your points do not concern my topic, or original post.


 
You haven't been paying attention.  I don't have a position, and have merely been asking question, and in doing so used evidence to further discussion.



> But let's just suppose you somehow "win" your debate.


 
Not interested in winning.  I'm interested in learning.



> You prove that Islam is centered on violence and a majority of the followers condone this violence and intend to spread their faith via such methods. (Although, it was not the intent of the 9/11 terrorists to spread Islam by flying planes into the towers.) Oh, that's right. They want to erradicate the non-believers, right? Yes, that's right. There's a verse somewhere that talks about it, so it must be the main objective of the entire religion. So let's forget all the other ones about not forcing Islam on non-believers.


 
Never said they all agreed on the intent, nor homogeneous belief in the same tactics.  Never said that they *all *want to do anything.  Never said that Islam is *centered *on violence.

I believe that most texts of any sort can potentially be taken out of context.  I get that.  And if were to make an assertion about said verse, you could, using the Quran, the Hadith, and other legitimate Islamic authority to refute it.  I got no problem with that.  It's what learning is all about.

But all you have done so far is to make statements which you have not backed up with facts, whether true or not.  That will never convince me.  And I am going to assume that since we are having this discussion that there is a purpose other then just typing on a keyboard.




> As I stated before, terrists take a distorted interpretation and use it to force others to do their dirty work. If you agree with their hardline ideals, and say, "This must be the real goal of Islam," you only help to spread this distorted view.


 
And, once again, you have shown in no way that it is a distorted view.  As a lawyer would say during a trial:  you are stating facts not in evidence.



> I guess I've said all I can, or care to at this point. I suggest carefully thinking about the issue, and maybe getting some more information from reliable sources.


 
You're making the assumption that my sources are not reliable.  Why?  Merely because they don't reflect what you know to be true.  In fact, you haven't given me any framework from which to judge those who may or may not be reliable, unless I simply agree with your unsupported statements of "fact". 

Come on, for goodness sakes, give me something to work with.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 26, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not exactly. In Virginia vs. Black, the Supreme Court ruled, for the purposes of our discussion, that there must be an intent to imtimidate in order for cross-burning to be a crime. So the mere burning of the cross in not enough. In fact, in the same case, the Supreme Court struck down some specific wording in the Virginia statute which says" "Any such burning of a cross shall be _prima facie_ evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons."
> 
> So the state must prove an intent to intimidate.


 

And yet Metzger, et. al, were convicted for burning a cross on private party, at a private gathering, away from the eyes of those who could be "intimidated."


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 26, 2010)

elder999 said:


> And yet Metzger, et. al, were convicted for burning a cross on private party, at a private gathering, away from the eyes of those who could be "intimidated."


 
That case happened 12 years before the Supreme Court Decision, and to the best of my knowledge, he never appealed his conviction.  His conviction not withstanding, the Supreme Court case still holds as valid, and a state must prove intentional intimidation.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 27, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not at all, although I am not sure what impossible solution that I am supposed to be positing.
> 
> I am simply suggesting that there is no good reason, if they feel that their religion is being corrupted and destroyed, for them not to do something about it, whether politically or militarily.
> 
> ...


 
You're changing what I say, as well as moving the goal posts. Now you include violence in a very general sense. Many cultures and religion condone violence in defense of life and property. Sounds.... almost American, doesn't it?

Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

With only an English translation as my reference, I state again that this is nowhere found in the QURAN. If I do not satisfy your qualification as an expert witness, you will need to bring someone else to the stand.  So, if I say there is nothing, I guess you gotta bring 'something.'

I think people will only see what they want to see. You've only brought a [fabricated] claim that "most Muslims are terrorists." Did you ask your claimant to site THIER sources? If they have none, then I guess there is really nothing here to refute, but an empty arguement as you say. Maybe you could return to him/her and ask, "What makes you think most Muslims are terrorists?" Then you could bring some specific points to the discussion as I asked earlier.

Take care,


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 27, 2010)

Monadnock said:


> You're changing what I say, as well as moving the goal posts. Now you include violence in a very general sense. Many cultures and religion condone violence in defense of life and property. Sounds.... almost American, doesn't it?
> 
> Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."


 
Not moving the goal posts.  I have remained rather consistent.  My first post in this thread, in fact, had to do with the fact that I find it hard to believe that a we had to worry about a religion that claims to be a religion of peace would commit an act of violence regarding the burning of a book.  There is no "terrorism" in that act.  I also posted a video of a women stating that she believes that all Jews should move to Israel so that they don't have to be hunted down globally.  That is not terrorism, as there is no explicit attempt to influence political agendas, just genocide.  I spoke about Muslims killing a woman by kicking and dropping a cinder block on her head because she refused to marry a person for whom her family had arranged.  None of these are acts of terrrorism, though they do, indeed, involve a great deal of violence or threatened violence.

But no, it doesn't sound like America.  You don't tend to see, though it does happen on occasion, people killing each other over religious beliefs.  Mostly it's just senseless killing.

There is something ironic in your statement about defense of life and property, though.  Osama Bin Laden, in issuing his fatwah, utilized the idea of defensive military jihad.  This means that it is the duty of all Muslims to participate, not just the male population, as would be the case in offensive military jihad.  To wit, he states:



> If there are more than one duty to be carried out, then the most important one should receive priority. Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. No other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it; the people of knowledge, Ibn Taymiyyah, stated: "*to fight in defence of religion and Belief is a collective duty*; there is no other duty after Belief than fighting the enemy who is corrupting the life and the religion.


 
He wisely (for his purposes) framed the argument in terms of the defense and not the offence in order to gain as much support as possible.



> With only an English translation as my reference, I state again that this is nowhere found in the QURAN. If I do not satisfy your qualification as an expert witness, you will need to bring someone else to the stand.  So, if I say there is nothing, I guess you gotta bring 'something.'


 
You satisfy my qualification that you know more about it then others posting.  As I said, I will give you positions the consideration that they are due.

However, as I posted from a site regarding Muslims against terrorism, even they say that most Islamic leaders condone violence.  So I weigh what you say with what they say (plus others) and I come to a tentative belief.  What else do you suggest that I do?



> I think people will only see what they want to see. You've only brought a [fabricated] claim that "most Muslims are terrorists."


 
You don't listen.  I never made that claim or any other.  I gave you examples that adherents of Islam utilize and think perfectly appropriate the use of violence to further whatever agenda that they may hold.  And that Islam condones such violence, their words, not mine.  

So when you say that Islam does not, and I ask for proof of your position, you resort to distortions of what I am saying, deflection, and provide no evidence to support your position that most Muslims don't condone such violence.



> Did you ask your claimant to site THIER sources?


 
If it was a training class that I attended, they always, to gain credibility with a skeptical law enforcement audience, state their own training and experiences.  With some books, they often have "About the Author" sections, as well as the fact that they are non-fiction books citing their own research.  Some of the books are written by those of / formerly of the Islamic faith themselves, or grew up in Islamic countries.



> If they have none, then I guess there is really nothing here to refute, but an empty arguement as you say. Maybe you could return to him/her and ask, "What makes you think most Muslims are terrorists?" Then you could bring some specific points to the discussion as I asked earlier.


 
There really is nothing more to say, I guess.  I ask you to refute the claims of other Muslims, with evidence, and yet you refuse to do so.  I post video of Muslims advocating the destruction of an entire race of people, and you tell me, without evidence, that it is a distortion of Islam.  I show where Muslims kick and kill a woman who is "in violation" of Sharia law, and you say nothing.  You say that there are millions of Muslims who speak out against terrorism "even if I haven't heard them", and yet don't point me to any sources where I can find such information, even when I ask it of you.

Hell, I'm the one who posted even a remotely Muslim groups belief against terrorism in this entire discussion.  

Once again, I have made no claim, only asked questions, citing the evidence that I can find.  And so far, you have not cited any evidence, given any source, posited any verse in the Quran, that would show otherwise.

It's really to bad.  I really was looking for ammunition to use against those who say that Muslims are all extremists (as Westerners use the term) and terrorists.  But I guess none is to be found here.


----------



## Monadnock (Sep 28, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You don't listen. I never made that claim or any other. I gave you examples that adherents of Islam utilize and think perfectly appropriate the use of violence to further whatever agenda that they may hold. And that Islam condones such violence, their words, not mine.


But you did state that claim. It was highlighted in red above, in your own quote. If you change your claims between posts, it makes the discussion difficult.


5-0 Kenpo said:


> So when you say that Islam does not, and I ask for proof of your position, you resort to distortions of what I am saying, deflection, and provide no evidence to support your position that most Muslims don't condone such violence.


If it appears I distored something, I am sorry. I really just use the quote feature and highlight in red your own words, so it minimizes this possibility. 


5-0 Kenpo said:


> There really is nothing more to say, I guess. I ask you to refute the claims of other Muslims, with evidence, and yet you refuse to do so. I post video of Muslims advocating the destruction of an entire race of people, and you tell me, without evidence, that it is a distortion of Islam. I show where Muslims kick and kill a woman who is "in violation" of Sharia law, and you say nothing. You say that there are millions of Muslims who speak out against terrorism "even if I haven't heard them", and yet don't point me to any sources where I can find such information, even when I ask it of you.


I guess you've really missed what I've posted then. Also, this is the first mention of a woman being beaten in your posts, so I have not had a chance to say anything. Now I am beginning to wonder about your honesty.


5-0 Kenpo said:


> Once again, I have made no claim, only asked questions, citing the evidence that I can find. And so far, you have not cited any evidence, given any source, posited any verse in the Quran, that would show otherwise.


So websites, 3rd party hearsay and online videos are your evidence, but my direct experiences are not. 


5-0 Kenpo said:


> It's really to bad. I really was looking for ammunition to use against those who say that Muslims are all extremists (as Westerners use the term) and terrorists. But I guess none is to be found here.


Yes, I guess it's too bad. I almost beleived that was what you were here to do, but now I am leaning towards....not.

I do hope other readers could glean some insight form our talk.

Thanks,


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 29, 2010)

Monadnock said:


> But you did state that claim. It was highlighted in red above, in your own quote. If you change your claims between posts, it makes the discussion difficult.


 
No I didn't.  The only thing I did was ask for proof of the claim that most Muslims didn't believe in violence as an acceptable means of resolving religious / secular differences.



> If it appears I distored something, I am sorry. I really just use the quote feature and highlight in red your own words, so it minimizes this possibility.


 
You highlight would lead me to suppose that somehow that was the first time I brought up extremism, as opposed to just terrorism.  In that, you would be wrong.  I point you to my post on 09/22, 09/23, 09/24 as proof.  Not only that, but my very first question, why do we have to worry about violence regarding the burning of a book from a purported religion of peace, has nothing to do with terrorism, but everything to do with extremism. 



> I guess you've really missed what I've posted then. Also, this is the first mention of a woman being beaten in your posts, so I have not had a chance to say anything. Now I am beginning to wonder about your honesty.


 
No, I haven't.  You've made claims that you never backed-up.  When I ask for proof of those claims, somehow it becomes my responsibility to prove that they aren't true.  Even when I point out that your statements are irrelevent to my questions, you still refuse to directly answer them.

As to my honesty, I will only point you to my post on 09/24, where I speak about women being being stoned for being unpure.  The specific one which I allude to above I hadn't said before in this post, you are correct.  I said it in the "Lessons from 9/11"thread.  However, the beating of women was still stated on an occassion prior to the one you mention.



> So websites, 3rd party hearsay and online videos are your evidence, but my direct experiences are not.


 
I said that I would give your experiences and understanding the credit that it's due, didn't I.  I did say that didn't I?

What you call 3rd party hearsay is 1st person eyewitness testimony to me.  What's funny is, according to your argument, is that I should believe your "3rd party hearsay" experiences and not theirs.  Now why is that?

At least in some ways, I can verify their experiences, while I have to take it on faith that you are being honest with me.  Which I am more then willing to do, if context and evidence of claims are provided to me.



> Yes, I guess it's too bad. I almost beleived that was what you were here to do, but now I am leaning towards....not.


 
Why?  Because I don't just automatically believe that what you say is true, and ask for evidence for you to back up your claim?  How ridiculous of me, huh.  



> I do hope other readers could glean some insight form our talk.


 
I really don't know what others could glean from our conversation.  Unfortunately, we spent more time arguing about arguing then any meaning full context for the topic, with evidence provided of our positions.   

It really is too bad.


----------

