• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

8 killed in protest at UN office in Northern Afghanistan

theplaydrive said:
I agree. Just as being American is seen as provocative to anti-American terrorists. Unfortunately, I'm not talking about who we are - I'm talking about what we do.
Click to expand...

right, and interracial couples are not born that way, and there is no fundamental need for them to be together. So by your reasoning, they are at fault if racists attack them, because they were being provocative and interracial


theplaydrive said:
Nope. Stop projecting. Never said it, never implied it.
Click to expand...
1) the accusation of "projection" makes no sense here

2) you have suggested it numerous times. If you want, I can provide the numerous quotes were you state not giving into unreasonable demands is provocation, and makes the person at fault. If such a position strikes you as moronic, once actually studied, that isn't my fault


theplaydrive said:
The similarity is in the fact that one goes out of their way to taunt murderers. Interracial couples just being together is not them going out of their way to taunt racists just as Americans just being Americans is not going out of their way to taunt murderers. The other situations are going out of your way to taunt people.
Click to expand...

Right, like all those people who taunted the klan by publicly disagreeing with them. Clearly they were at fault for the violence committed against them
 
theplaydrive said:
Nope. Being critical of terrorism is not the same as taunting terrorists.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything wrong with taunting them, either.

Military strategists who criticize terrorism don't ever seem to tell soldiers to taunt terrorists - there is the difference. Criticism vs. Taunting. I support the former.
Click to expand...

Got anything to back that up? I would venture to guess that combat patrols, within the terrorists's stomping ground is definitely, "taunting", them. We have to draw them out into the open and destroy them.
 
apdst said:
I don't see anything wrong with taunting them, either.
Click to expand...
Then we disagree. At least you're not twisting my argument.

Got anything to back that up? I would venture to guess that combat patrols, within the terrorists's stomping ground is definitely, "taunting", them. We have to draw them out into the open and destroy them.
Click to expand...
Okay, well that has strategic value for the purpose of the mission. I imagine military strategists would not encourage burning Korans when it doesn't have strategic value and could lead to unnecessary casualties.
 
theplaydrive said:
Nope. Being critical of terrorism is not the same as taunting terrorists.

Military strategists who criticize terrorism don't ever seem to tell soldiers to taunt terrorists - there is the difference. Criticism vs. Taunting. I support the former.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it was only the people who participated in civil right marches that were to blame for the violence against them. Thank you for clarifying your position
 
theplaydrive said:
Then we disagree. At least you're not twisting my argument.


Okay, well that has strategic value for the purpose of the mission. I imagine military strategists would not encourage burning Korans when it doesn't have strategic value and could lead to unnecessary casualties.
Click to expand...

How is it going to lead to un-necessary casualties?
 
theplaydrive said:
Then we disagree. At least you're not twisting my argument.


Okay, well that has strategic value for the purpose of the mission. I imagine military strategists would not encourage burning Korans when it doesn't have strategic value and could lead to unnecessary casualties.
Click to expand...

I'm not twisting your words, I am applying your logic to various circumstances to show what it amounts to. If you feel that certain groups are exempt from logic, then that's an issue with your consistency as a thinker, and not their application
 
apdst said:
How is it going to lead to un-necessary casualties?
Click to expand...

By pissing off the locals and causing violence? Esp. as it can be avoided :shrug:
 
Part of being a good American is showing respect for others religious beliefs.
 
Laila said:
By pissing off the locals and causing violence? Esp. as it can be avoided :shrug:
Click to expand...

If we draw terrorists out into the open and kill them, then I'm not seeing how any friendly casulaties would be deemed, "un-necessary".

You still condemn terrorism. Yes?
 
ManofthPeephole said:
right, and interracial couples are not born that way, and there is no fundamental need for them to be together. So by your reasoning, they are at fault if racists attack them, because they were being provocative and interracial
Click to expand...
Nope, another false comparison. Interracial couples can choose to not be in a relationship just as Americans can choose to abandon their culture. Unfortunately for you, I'm not arguing that either choice should be made. Interracial couples should stay together and Americans should keep their values/culture.

I'm talking about provocation by provoking actively (i.e. burning the Koran) - not about provocation by being (i.e. being American).

1) the accusation of "projection" makes no sense here
2) you have suggested it numerous times. If you want, I can provide the numerous quotes were you state not giving into unreasonable demands is provocation, and makes the person at fault. If such a position strikes you as moronic, once actually studied, that isn't my fault
Click to expand...
Don't provoke murderers. That's my claim. Anything else about blaming victims of the KKK for being in interracial relationships is projection.

Right, like all those people who taunted the klan by publicly disagreeing with them. Clearly they were at fault for the violence committed against them
Click to expand...
I'm talking about taunting, not about criticism. Get it straight. Taunting =/= criticism.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
Oh, so it was only the people who participated in civil right marches that were to blame for the violence against them. Thank you for clarifying your position
Click to expand...

Nope. The exact opposite.

Again - criticism =/= taunting.

Edit: I would also add that I have not attributed sole blame to the Pastor in question - I have only given him a role as one of the many causes of these violent actions - which happened in response to his book burning.
 
Last edited:
Mikeyy said:
Part of being a good American is showing respect for others religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Muslims don't share that value? :rofl

You must get pissed as hell when someone defiles anything to do with Christianity.

The Piss Christ suddenly comes to mind.

220px-Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_%281987%29.jpg
 
ManofthPeephole said:
I'm not twisting your words, I am applying your logic to various circumstances to show what it amounts to. If you feel that certain groups are exempt from logic, then that's an issue with your consistency as a thinker, and not their application
Click to expand...

Nope, your evaluating my arguments with your preconceived notions about them. This is causing you to twist my arguments into things that I have neither said nor implied.
 
Mikeyy said:
Part of being a good American is showing respect for others religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

No it's not. In fact, one of my fundamental rights is being able to tell the religous to go shove it
 
This helps to support the position that Islam is not so much a Religion but a Cult.

I can't believe that God, Buddha, or anyone of the thousands of names used by various Religions to depict a Supreme being would condone the Murder of innocent people who had not even a remote connection to the one considered the offender.

What is troubling in the extreme to me is that Terry Jones does not see or accept any responsibility for the killings.

I see Jones as being every bit as bad as the Islamic Cultists themselves.

Jones by holding a mock trial on the Koran on video and posting it on You Tube has put the lives of everyone in the videos's life in jeopardy. He may well pay the ultimate price for his lack of Christian values.

I put this creeps Church in the same category as the Westboro Baptist Church that protest activities, that include picketing funerals of soldiers and desecrating the American flag, attacking Jews and Homosexuals.

I know the First Amendment protects this guys Protests, but this act was likely to cause this to happen, just as yelling fire in a crowded Theater, and should be punishable in the same way.
ji-protest-500.jpg
 
Last edited:
ManofthPeephole said:
No it's not. In fact, one of my fundamental rights is being able to tell the religous to go shove it
Click to expand...

Just because you can, does not make it the right thing to do.
 
theplaydrive said:
Nope, another false comparison. Interracial couples can choose to not be in a relationship just as Americans can choose to abandon their culture. Unfortunately for you, I'm not arguing that either choice should be made. Interracial couples should stay together and Americans should keep their values/culture.
Click to expand...

wrong, people are born in the US and face some rather high obstacles in relocating to another country. Interracial couples are completely voluntary exercises

theplaydrive said:
I'm talking about provocation by provoking actively (i.e. burning the Koran) - not about provocation by being (i.e. being American).
Click to expand...
right, like criticizing the klan or marching for equal rights


theplaydrive said:
Don't provoke murderers. That's my claim. Anything else about blaming victims of the KKK for being in interracial relationships is projection.
Click to expand...

again, the accusation of projection makes no sense, so I am unsure why you keep using it. Secondly, yes, your idea of provocation, being resistance to the demands of the irrational, is the entire issue. No one should self-censor because of the demands of religious fanatics or racists



theplaydrive said:
I'm talking about taunting, not about criticism. Get it straight. Taunting =/= criticism.
Click to expand...

right, like marching down the street demanding equal rights
 
theplaydrive said:
Nope, your evaluating my arguments with your preconceived notions about them. This is causing you to twist my arguments into things that I have neither said nor implied.
Click to expand...


No, I am simply extrapolating your logic to other scenarios and letting you see how bankrupt it is
 
Blackdog said:
Just because you can, does not make it the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Nope, telling some religous nut job to go suck a **** is the perfectly correct thing to do, when the nut job feels his religon should invade on my rights
 
ManofthPeephole said:
wrong, people are born in the US and face some rather high obstacles in relocating to another country. Interracial couples are completely voluntary exercises

right, like criticizing the klan or marching for equal rights

again, the accusation of projection makes no sense, so I am unsure why you keep using it. Secondly, yes, your idea of provocation, being resistance to the demands of the irrational, is the entire issue. No one should self-censor because of the demands of religious fanatics or racists

right, like marching down the street demanding equal rights
Click to expand...

Provocation =/= Criticism

Both can be dangerous. However, provocation unnecessarily provokes violent people. There is a difference between criticizing terrorism and actively provoking terrorists which is why academics and policymakers who criticize terrorists are different from people who burn Korans. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference.
 
Having a right to do something is different from it being right to do something. I have a right to do a lot of things you would find disgusting. That doesn't mean I should do them. Understand?
 
Someone is invading your thoughts? ha ha
ManofthPeephole said:
Nope, telling some religous nut job to go suck a **** is the perfectly correct thing to do, when the nut job feels his religon should invade on my rights
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom