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

[Master Dan]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[K-man]

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

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

 

[fangjian]

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

 

[granfire]

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

I picked a fine day to quit coffee...

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[granfire]

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is WHY did he want that?

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

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

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

 

[fangjian]

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

Hehe. Sorry.

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

 

[granfire]

Hehe. Sorry.

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

It seriously does.

 

[granfire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is WHY did he want that?

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

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

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

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

Him wanting America at war with itself? maybe.

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

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

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

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

 

[Blade96]

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

 

[granfire]

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

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

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

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

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

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

 

[Archangel M]

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

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

Such as?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Such as?

We've already begun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[granfire]

So what's your point?

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So what's your point?

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

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

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