8 killed in protest at UN office in Northern Afghanistan

Sorry you are going to keep skating around the issue. If you can't answer a straight question thats fine.

ManofthPeephole said:

you're saying people shouldn't do something because it may offend. That's promoting self-censorship and the curtailment of free speech. Even if done so voluntarily

Click to expand...

Mikeyy said:

Sorry you are going to keep skating around the issue. If you can't answer a straight question thats fine.

Click to expand...

yes, by directly addressing your issue, numerous times, I am skating around it

You never have. You keep expresing his rights. I asked you specifically if you shared his sentiments

ManofthPeephole said:

yes, by directly addressing your issue, numerous times, I am skating around it

Click to expand...

Mikeyy said:

I asked you specifically if you shared his sentiments

Click to expand...

Sorry, I must have missed that (though I am unsure where you exactly asked it or what bearing it has on the discussion): Well, I think Islam has many barbaric religious, practices that are still largely adhered to today, but that individual Muslims have no issue leaving such at the road side, and do so everyday. Also, many of the Muslims that I know, from the states, moved here to escape the influence of religion on politics. So tend to see no issue with what he did, and dismiss him as a crank

To simplify: no, I see no problem with a person burning a book, because all are free to ignore him.

Now you have told me what you think American Muslims think and that people are free to ignore him. I don't think we are getting anywhere here. But thanks.

ManofthPeephole said:

To simplify: no, I see no problem with a person burning a book, because all are free to ignore him.

Click to expand...

Mikeyy said:

Funny but people are dead

Click to expand...

People are dead because of their culture permits extremism and encourages it. In Pakistan people literally want their children to become suicide bombers. No sane parent in the US tells the camera they want their little boy to grow like Charles Whitman.

PeteEU said:

Hope someone sues/arrests Terry Jones. He is the direct cause of these deaths. He is the one that shouted "FIRE!" in a closed space and people got killed trying to get out.

Click to expand...

american christians don't murder people when jihadist scum burn American Flags or Bibles. In fact americans didn't go into murderous riots after 9-11

face it, some people are undisciplined animals and need killing

Mikeyy said:

They don't live here and don't share your constitutional rights. Again, They are not trying to indoctrinate you personally so why support a guy who hides behind "our" rights to tweek others into violence. What do you get out of it except the satisfaction of bothering people?

Click to expand...

What did the Vietnam War protesters who raised the flag of North Vietnam while burning the American flag accomplish, other than tweaking Americans who fought for what it symbolized to them? I don't recall any returning servicemen going off and killing these a-holes, even if they might have felt they deserved it. Even pissing on a statue of George Washington didn't quite have the same effect. A protest of this sort only has meaning if it's tweaking someone else. And what good is a right if you can't exercise it?

In the present circumstance, I wouldn't be surprised if Taliban insurgents used the cover of the protest as a means to infiltrate the UN compound in order to kill the staff. But even if that was not the case, what does the attack say about these Islamists? I found it hilarious that someone wrote earlier that the reverend was taunting terrorists. Really? I thought we were at war with these people, unless someone can explain to me how Hellfire missiles and Special Ops raids are making friends. Why bother playing nice when you're facing evil, and where's General Sheridan when you need him? ("The only good Indians I ever saw were dead.")

Mikeyy said:

Now you have told me what you think American Muslims think and that people are free to ignore him. I don't think we are getting anywhere here. But thanks.

Click to expand...

I just wrote what I thought, and then added the perspective of some people I know. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about

One more thing. I hadn't even heard that the reverend had burned the Koran until after this attack on the UN. Apparently, neither had most of the population of Afghanistan until President Karzai went off on a rant about it in a national speech. If anyone's guilty of stupidity or being a moron, it's Karzai. Maybe he's the one who should be arrested.

theplaydrive said:

Did you seriously reply to me without reading the FIRST line of my post? Are you kidding? Let me repost it for you with highlights:



In other words, I'm not arguing that we should change our laws, I'm arguing that people should stop doing stupid things with our laws.

As far as what "they want us to do": I can assure that burning a Koran is one of those things as it just strengthens their argument that the U.S. is full of bigoted people who hate Muslims.

Click to expand...

Would you explain scientifically "doing stupid things with our laws". Who are those people who would decide if people are doing stupid things with laws or not? I think it is subjective. If it is within the law it is O.K. If it is not it, is not. From this thread I have learned that opinions differ.

grig said:

Would you explain scientifically "doing stupid things with our laws". Who are those people who would decide if people are doing stupid things with laws or not? I think it is subjective. If it is within the law it is O.K. If it is not it, is not. From this thread I have learned that opinions differ.

Click to expand...

Using freedom of speech to provoke murderers.

Ben K. said:

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre comparison? More like he yelled "this movie sucks" in a theatre and the films director and his pals went on a killing spree of completely unrelated people in a different country.

There is something sick about the culture in Afghanistan and engagement in that part of the world isn't changing any of it.

Click to expand...

I think there something demonic and sick about the muslims that live in the ME, and run around screaming "Death to America" because one person burn a book. Frankly it kind of pisses me off. If we did what they did scaled to the size of our country and population, we'd have dropped a hydrogen bomb on them.

So you are in agreement with Jones's actions. That is what I wanted to know. That you would have burned one with him.

ManofthPeephole said:

I just wrote what I thought, and then added the perspective of some people I know. So I'm not sure what you are complaining about

Click to expand...

Mikeyy said:

So you are in agreement with Jones's actions. That is what I wanted to know. That you would have burned one with him.

Click to expand...

Since he never said anything like that, you conclude that this must be his position, eh?


Does this mean you support some subhumans murdering innocent people because some idiot burned a book?

theplaydrive said:

Using freedom of speech to provoke murderers.

Click to expand...

You know, I can see why the reverend burned the book. He thinks Islam is evil, and he wanted to show the world that. Judging from the reaction in Afghanistan, I think he helped his cause famously. And it certainly magnified him well beyond his significance. But what was Karzai's excuse for not following the lead of international media and showing a little discretion in publicizing the burning? He certainly had to know how incendiary this would be in Afghanistan and that this would put the lives of Westerners in the country at risk. Was he playing fast and loose with the lives of foreigners for some cynical political purpose?

Nothing can justify the cycle of violent behaviour engaged by the rioters, Karzai and the Rev. Jones. Jones burned the Qur'an in the full knowledge that some hyped-up, stirred up extremist somewhere would react in the way the mob in Mazar-e Sharif did. That is culpable incitement.

Karzai used the fact of the Qur'an burning and the febrile state of popular feeling to incite the taking of some action against foreigners in Afghanistan. He is also culpable for those deaths that would not have happened had he not brought greater attention to the Rev. Jones' actions.

The mob that carried out the attacks is directly responsible for the deaths. Their inability to maintain order and perspective is one of the central truths as to why Afghanistan has never known prolonged periods of peace and prosperity. Tribal enmities and jealousies, religious fanaticism and a deficit of legitimacy for central authority have in the past and continue to do for any attempts to develop a peaceful political culture.

You may think that burning books is, and should be legal and uncontroversial; that it is merely a valid expression of free will. The relatively recent history of the act of book burning should tell you that it is a stepping stone to the destruction of the freedom of expression, that it is just a few more rednecked pastors away from the curtailment of the freedom of writers to write and publishers to publish whatever their consciences dictate. Book burning is not an expression of free speech but a signal of the ending of that freedom.

Problem is nobody wants to condemn his action straight out when they should. I think the murderers are medieval in their thinking. They believe when they murder people they are doing it to avenge god. Jones burned the Koran because he wanted to make them angry. He knew that would be the result. So his right to do it aside Jones never considered he may put people in harms way by his actions and now won't accept responsibility for stirring it up. Jones did what he did also to have a dig and peaceful followers of Islam. I think he hopes to stir a religious war. But simply wants to be an instigator from the sidelines without the guts to go do this in a Muslim country. He hides behind the rights fought and died for by others including Muslims to stir a war he has little guts to fight himself. He is anti American and a coward. I wouldn't give you two cents for the guy or his following because it isn't about his rights it's about being American and showing some respect for others beliefs. And I don't mean the medieval nutcases in Afghanistan. I mean the peaceful Muslims who shouldn't have had their book desecrated to serve some nutcase preachers arrogant and selfish bigoted whims. Jones should be condemned. It's not an either or situation. The Afghans were wrong and so was Jones.

Gardener said:

Since he never said anything like that, you conclude that this must be his position, eh?


Does this mean you support some subhumans murdering innocent people because some idiot burned a book?

Click to expand...

Andalublue said:

You may think that burning books is, and should be legal and uncontroversial; that it is merely a valid expression of free will. The relatively recent history of the act of book burning should tell you that it is a stepping stone to the destruction of the freedom of expression, that it is just a few more rednecked pastors away from the curtailment of the freedom of writers to write and publishers to publish whatever their consciences dictate. Book burning is not an expression of free speech but a signal of the ending of that freedom.

Click to expand...

I do believe you should distinguish between said activity when conducted by an individual and when conducted by a state or multi-state institution. The actual signal of the ending of free speech is when these states and multi-state institutions act to limit the expressions of free speech by an individual.

To give an example, there has been a movement within the United Nations to characterize the criticism of Islam as an act of bigotry that should not be tolerated. Indeed, within much of Islam, such criticism is not only forbidden, but in many cases punishable by rather severe means. The meme being promoted here is the conflation of the criticism of an ideology with an irrational bigotry, fostered currently in various sub-communities here in the west through various disincentives that take the form of social ostracism -- the scorn of political correctness acting to limit the ability to voice such criticism. As of now, there is no real infringement of free speech here in America, however, since the state does not act to prevent the expression of such criticism.

You notion that it is necessary to prevent the exercize of free speech for some in order to foster free speech is certainly a contradiction shared by many in Britain, but in failing to distinguish between the actions of an individual and the actions of a state, you fail to understand the essential nature of the actual rights involved.

Ahlevah said:

You know, I can see why the reverend burned the book. He thinks Islam is evil, and he wanted to show the world that. Judging from the reaction in Afghanistan, I think he helped his cause famously. And it certainly magnified him well beyond his significance. But what was Karzai's excuse for not following the lead of international media and showing a little discretion in publicizing the burning? He certainly had to know how incendiary this would be in Afghanistan and that this would put the lives of Westerners in the country at risk. Was he playing fast and loose with the lives of foreigners for some cynical political purpose?

Click to expand...

He probably was. From my perspective, he wanted to create a firestorm that villainized the United States and ignited his people against us - he succeeded in doing that to a certain extent just as the reverend succeeded, to a certain extent, in getting the reaction he wanted. In the end, I think every person should be held accountable (in word not necessarily in law) for their role in these killings. The pastor, Karzai and the murderers were all causes of this situation - none of them should be let off the hook.

Andalublue said:

Nothing can justify the cycle of violent behaviour engaged by the rioters, Karzai and the Rev. Jones. Jones burned the Qur'an in the full knowledge that some hyped-up, stirred up extremist somewhere would react in the way the mob in Mazar-e Sharif did. That is culpable incitement.

Karzai used the fact of the Qur'an burning and the febrile state of popular feeling to incite the taking of some action against foreigners in Afghanistan. He is also culpable for those deaths that would not have happened had he not brought greater attention to the Rev. Jones' actions.

The mob that carried out the attacks is directly responsible for the deaths. Their inability to maintain order and perspective is one of the central truths as to why Afghanistan has never known prolonged periods of peace and prosperity. Tribal enmities and jealousies, religious fanaticism and a deficit of legitimacy for central authority have in the past and continue to do for any attempts to develop a peaceful political culture.

You may think that burning books is, and should be legal and uncontroversial; that it is merely a valid expression of free will. The relatively recent history of the act of book burning should tell you that it is a stepping stone to the destruction of the freedom of expression, that it is just a few more rednecked pastors away from the curtailment of the freedom of writers to write and publishers to publish whatever their consciences dictate. Book burning is not an expression of free speech but a signal of the ending of that freedom.

Click to expand...

Only when the government does it. Like when public libraries ban books that aren't politically correct, such as Tom Sawyer, or Uncle Remus, because they--gasp--the word nigger is in them.

When a private citizen burns a book, it's definitely freedom of expression.

Mikeyy said:

So you are in agreement with Jones's actions. That is what I wanted to know. That you would have burned one with him.

Click to expand...

Oh, Mikeyy, you're such a dull slouch. Please quote for me where I said I agree with the man

1 - Acting like savages and killing people who were over there trying to better that place...biting the hand that feeds them.

2 - These sub par humans made a concious choice to resort to mob mentality and act like zombies not rational human beings.

And finally... Dont belive for one milisecond that if we dance to the tune of their music that they are playing, the violence will minimized or they will suddenly understand and embrace us as equals and we will all become soulmates


This will NEVER, EVER happen.

The more we give in, the more these savages will demand we give

Lets draw the line in the sand and be done with it

Gardener said:

I do believe you should distinguish between said activity when conducted by an individual and when conducted by a state or multi-state institution.

Click to expand...

When the end is the same, the person performing the act is irrelevant. The intention in burning books is to stifle dissenting opinion, and it makes no difference whether it is a state, private or religious organisation attempting to limit that dissent.

Your notion that it is necessary to prevent the exercize of free speech for some in order to foster free speech

Click to expand...

That would be YOUR notion, not mine. I haven't suggested such limitation, nor do I believe in it, even for the book burning Christofascists or Islamofascists.

but in failing to distinguish between the actions of an individual and the actions of a state, you fail to understand the essential nature of the actual rights involved.

Click to expand...

Your focus on differentiating the actions of public bodies from those of private bodies, individuals, religious groups and corporations displays a conservative bent but no logical rationale. A fanatical pastor burning books has the same intent as the state-sponsored burning of books. The only difference is in the likelihood of a successful outcome. I have no idea whether you are trying to invoke US constititutional principles in your argument by suggesting I am failing to understand the nature of the rights involved. If so, please save your breath because, while the Rev Jones might be covered by such constitutional considerations, I couldn't give a stuff. His constitutional right to attempt to snuff out alternative belief systems is irrelevant.