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

[Nomad]

At least 12 people were killed in Afghanistan Friday, most of them foreigners, when a United Nations compound was stormed following a demonstration by Afghans enraged by a Florida pastor’s burning of a Koran, according to Afghan officials.

Thousands of protesters mobilized after a midday sermon, then surged toward the offices of the United Nations in Mazar-e-Sharif, northern Afghanistan’s largest city and normally a bastion of calm.

Some in the crowd broke into the U.N. office and attacked the staff, killing security guards and members of the U.N. mission, officials said.

Full story here and here.

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

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

 

[billc]

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

 

[Nomad]

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

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

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

 

[billc]

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

 

[Nomad]

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

 

[Nomad]

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

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

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

 

[granfire]

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

Well, yes, he is responsible.

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

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

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

 

[billc]

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

 

[Archangel M]

Well, yes, he is responsible.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nomad]

Legally, he's not responsible.

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

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

 

[granfire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[billc]

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

 

[Nomad]

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

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

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

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

 

[billc]

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

 

[Nomad]

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

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

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

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

QFT

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

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